ML11291A079

09/27/2011 Summary of Public Meetings Conducted to Discuss the Dseis Related to the Review of the Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Application (Tac No. ME3121)

ML11291A079
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	11/01/2011
From:	Doyle D I License Renewal Projects Branch 2
To:
Doyle D I, 415-3748
References
TAC ME3121
Download: ML11291A079 (194)

Text

UNITED STATES "v'-"1" 0 11 NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C.

<{ 0 November 1,2011 . 'Y. ****1' Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Station

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC MEETINGS CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATED TO THE REVIEW OF THE COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME3121) On Tuesday, September 27, 2011, members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held public meetings in Richland, Washington, concerning the staff's environmental review of the application submitted by Energy Northwest for renewal of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) operating license. The purpose of the meetings was to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) which was issued in August 2011. The draft SEIS is a plant-specific supplement for CGS to the "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (NUREG-1437).

The public meetings were held at the Red Lion Hotel in Richland, Washington.

The NRC staff described the overall license renewal process, provided a description of the National Environmental Policy Act review process, and discussed the environmental requirements outlined in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). The NRC staff also described the preliminary results of its analyses.

The environmental impacts of continued operation were predicted to be small in all areas. The impacts of alternatives (including the action alternative) were predicted to have impacts in at least some environmental aspects that could reach moderate or large significance.

After the formal presentations were given by the NRC staff, members of the public were invited to provide comments.

Approximately 115 people attended the two sessions.

Attendees included members of the public, local news media, NRC staff, and representatives from Energy Northwest.

Public comments included concerns related to the Fukushima Task Force Report, the potential use of mixed oxide fuel at the plant, and waste storage. Some participants requested that the NRC host additional public meetings around the region. In an effort to improve communication and increase interaction with members of the public, the NRC staff conducted open houses for one hour before each meeting and encouraged the public to submit meeting feedback forms. The staff provided displays and brochures and met with members of the public to answer questions about the proposed renewal of CGS.

-2 A combined listing of attendees for both sessions is provided in Enclosure

1. Enclosure 2 is a copy of the meeting handouts provided during the public meeting open house, including the agenda. The official transcripts for both meetings and any written comments submitted during the meetings are publicly available at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

The transcripts for the afternoon and evening meetings are listed under Accession Nos. ML 112910201, and ML 112910229, respectively.

A copy of the slides used during the NRC's presentation is also available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 112630603.

Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The comment period for the CGS draft SEIS ends on November 16, 2011. The NRC staff will consider all comments on the CGS draft SEIS and make any necessary revisions to the document prior to issuing its final SEIS. Daniel I. Doyle, roject Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-397

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Listserv PARTICIPANT Daniel Doyle Geraldine Fehst Jeremy Groom Mahdi Hayes Lara Uselding Michael Wentzel David Wrona Colm Brennan Gary Troyer Lori Sanders Andy Rapacz John Ciucci Linda Lehman Cal Siotemaker Karen Axell Roger Bates Paul Bentrup Bella Berlly Jane Boyajian Kevin Carlson Roger Cole John Cox Michael Crabbe Margo Cronin Doug Dachound Bill Farris Christen Gang Bill Gordon Holly Green Hafiz Heartsun Dianne Henckels Carl Holder Charles Johnson Daren Johnston Jim Kelley Jude Kone LIST OF COLUMBIA GENERATING DRAFT SEIS PUBLIC SEPTEMBER AFFILIATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alliance for Democracy, Oregon Chapter American Nuclear Society Eastern Washington Section Benton Public Utility District Bonneville Power Administration CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen Citizen ENCLOSURE 1

-2 Isaac Krieg Citizen Dorothy Lamb Citizen Keats Landis Citizen Doug Larsen Citizen Pam Larsen Citizen Ellen Leatham Citizen Carolyn Mann Citizen Sharon McEneny Citizen James McNauthton Citizen Nancy Morris Citizen Deb Muhlbeier Citizen Nancy Natela Citizen Stu Nelson Citizen Deborah Noble Citizen Madya Panfilio Citizen Sandy Polish uk Citizen Chandra Radiance Citizen Gisela Ray Citizen Dawn Reynolds Citizen Jacolyn Sorgen Citizen Margaret Swartzman Citizen Mae Thompson Citizen Theodora Tsongas Citizen Jacquelyn Valiquette Citizen Duy Van Citizen Ilira Walker Citizen David Westerlund Citizen Angela Woodward Citizen Warren Zimmermann Citizen Dale Atkinson Energy Northwest Sophia Atkinson Energy Northwest Jack Baker Energy Northwest Jim Chasse Energy Northwest John Dobken Energy Northwest Don Gregoire Energy Northwest Mot Hedges Energy Northwest Shannon Khounnala Energy Northwest Abbas Mostala Energy Northwest Robert Nielson Energy Northwest Rochelle Olson Energy Northwest Mike Paoli Energy Northwest Brent Ridge Energy Northwest Brad Sawatzke Energy l\Iorthwest John Twomey Desiree Wolfgramm Will Purser Kathleen Vaughn Bill Webb Marlene Oliver John Scheer Rich Sargent Mark Loper Gerry Pollet Rachel Stierling Anna King Cathryn Chudy Lloyd Marbet Rebekah Krieg George Last Tom Larsen Paul Fransioli Barb Lisk Dvija Bertish David Reeploeg Wendy DiPeso Ken Niles Gary Petersen Annette Cary Colin Hastings Woody Russell Joe Bartoszek Edward R. May II Lynn Albin Scott McDonald Thomas Buchanan Larry Haler Brad Klippert Steven Williams Peter Newton -3 Energy Northwest Energy Northwest Energy Northwest Executive Board Energy Northwest Executive Board, Snohomish County Public Utility District Federal Emergency Management Agency Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fighting Children's Cancer Foundation Franklin County Emergency Management Franklin Public Utility District Heart of America Northwest Heart of America Northwest Heart of America Northwest Northwest Public Radio Oregon Conservancy Foundation Oregon Conservancy Foundation Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Pasco City Council Redhorse Corporation, Las Vegas, NV Representative Doc Hastings's office Rosemary Neighborhood Association Senator Maria Cantwell's office Shoreline Washington State of Oregon Tri-City Development Council Tri-City Herald Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Union ironworker WA Department of Health WA Department of Health WA Physicians for Social Responsibility WA State House of Representatives, 8th District WA State House of Representatives, 8th District Washington Emergency Management Westinghouse

-General Manager AGENDA FOR PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE LICENSE RENEWAL OF COLUMBIA GENERATING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER Two Meeting Sessions -2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.* Welcome and Purpose of Meeting II. Overview of License Renewal Process III. Results of the Environmental Review IV. How Comments can be Submitted V. Public Comments VI. Closing/Availability of Transcripts, etc. 10 minutes (Geraldine Fehst) 10 minutes (Daniel Doyle) 30 minutes (Daniel Doyle) 5 minutes (Daniel Doyle) As Required (Geraldine Fehst) 5 minutes (Geraldine Fehst) *The NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour prior to each meeting session. No formal comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) will be accepted during the informal discussions.

To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meetings (see agenda, above) or in writing, as described in the attached Federal Register Notice. ENCLOSURE 2

-2 Welcome to the NRC's Open Associated with the Environmental Review for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating This open house is intended to provide an opportunity for interested members of the public and staff from other Federal, State, and local agencies to interact with NRC staff in an informal information exchange.

The NRC is soliciting comments on the recently issued draft supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants regarding the proposed renewal of the operating license for Columbia Generating Station. Please note that if you wish to provide formal comments regarding the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), they must be presented at today's transcribed public meetings or provided in writing by November 16,2011. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Written comments on the draft SEIS should be sent to: Cindy Bladey, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Office of Mailstop TWB-05-B01 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC Comments may also be submitted electronically at the Federal rulemaking website, http://www.regulations.gov. Search for 10: NRC-2010-0029.

Thank you for your participation.

Columbia Generating Station draft supplemental environmental impact statement:

http://www. nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr143 7/supplement4 71 NRC website for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewaiJapplications/columbia.html Sign up to receive electronic correspondence associated with this review: htlp:/lwww.nrc.gov/public-involvellistserver/plants-by-region.html NRC actions in response to Fukushima:

http://www.nrc.gov/japan/japan-info.html

-2 A combined listing of attendees for both sessions is provided in Enclosure

1. Enclosure 2 is a copy of the meeting handouts provided during the public meeting open house, including the agenda. The official transcripts for both meetings and any written comments submitted during the meetings are publicly available at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

The transcripts for the afternoon and evening meetings are listed under Accession Nos. ML 112910201, and ML 112910229, respectively.

A copy of the slides used during the NRC's presentation is also available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML 112630603.

Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

The comment period for the CGS draft SEIS ends on November 16, 2011. The NRC staff will consider all comments on the CGS draft SEIS and make any necessary revisions to the document prior to issuing its final SEIS. IRA! Daniell. Doyle, Project Manager Projects Branch 2 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-397

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls: Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

See next ADAMS Accession Package: ML 11292A206 Meeting Summary (w/encls. 1 & 2): ML 11291A079 Afternoon Transcript (Corrected):

ML 112910201 Evening Transcript (Corrected):

ML 112910229 Slides' ML 112630603 I I BC:DLR:RPB2 i LA: DLR: RPB2* PM:DLR:RPB2 I. liKing ------DDoyle DWrona 110/25/11 II DATE 10/27/11 11/1111 PM:DLR:RPB2 DDoyle 11/1/11 I Ii OFFICIAL RECORD COpy 5 Memorandum to Energy Northwest from D. Doyle dated November 1, 2011

SUMMARY

OF PUBLIC MEETINGS CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATED TO THE REVIEW OF THE COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NO. ME3121) DISTRIBUTION:

HARD COPY: DLRRF E-MAIL: PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb2 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlrRapb Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRpob Resource RidsOgcMailCenter Resource DWrona ACunanan DDoyle MThadani ICouret, OPA LSubin,OGC NOKeefe, RIV GPick, RIV WWalker, RIV JGroom, RIV MHayes, RIV BMaier, RIV VDricks, RIV LUselding, RIV Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket 50-397 Richland, Washington September 27, 2011 Work Order NRC-1157 Pages 1-75 NEAL R. GROSS AND co., Court Reporters and 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, D.C. (202) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY + + + + PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS COLUMBIA GENERATING + + + + SEPTEMBER 27, + + + + RICHLAND, + + + + The Public Meeting convened at the Red Lion Hotel, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington, at 2:00 p.m. , Geraldine Fehst, Facilitator, presiding.

PRESENT: GERALDINE FEHST, Facilitator DANIEL DOYLE, Environmental Project Manager LARA USELDING, Public Affairs, Region IV MICHAEL WENTZEL, NRR DAVID WRONA, Branch Chief MAHDI HAYES, Resident Inspector NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcome Geraldine Fehst .................... . Introductions Geraldine Fehst .................... . Results of NRC's Environmental Review of the Columbia Generating Station's Renewal Application Daniel Doyle, NRC Project Manager ... Clarifying Questions and Answers ......... . Public Comments .......................... . Adj ourn.................................. . NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 3 P-R-O-C-E E-D I-N-G-S 2 (2:05 p.m.) 3 MS. FEHST: Good afternoon, everyone.

4 Thank you f or coming. I think 's -we'll get 5 started just a few minutes late My name is Gerri Fehst, and I'm a Communication Specialist with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I'll be moderating this afternoon's meeting. And you'll hear the Nuclear Regulatory commission called NRC. You're probably very familiar 12 wi th that acronym but for those who aren't, that's 13 what we usually go by. 14 I'm going to do my best to keep today' s 15 meeting worthwhile for everyone, and I hope you'll 16 help me out with that. There are two purposes for 1 today's meeting. The first to present the results 18 of the NRC's Environmental Review for the Columbia 19 Generating Station s License Renewal Application, as I 23 20 published in the draft Supplemental Environmental rd 2 Impact Statement issued on August , 2011. 22 The second purpose is to provide members 23 of the public with an opportunity to provide comments 24 regarding environmental issues that the NRC should 25 consider during its review. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 I I d like to stress that this is an NRC pub 1 meeting, and that NRC is not a part of the United States Department of or DOE, as it's usually called. The mission of the NRC to regulate the nation's civil use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure the adequate protection of publ health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment.

Essentially, that means that the NRC's regulatory mission covers three main areas, commercial reactors for ing electric power and research and test reactors used for research, testing, and training.

Uses of nuclear materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings and facilit that produce nuclear fuel. And, ly, transportation, storage and disposal of nuclear materials and waste, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities from service. The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national economic and energy security of the United States, to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission, and to ensure the environmental cleanup of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 1 19 20 2 22 23 24 2 the national nuclear weapons complex. Today's meeting is just one way that you can participate in the process. And you'll be hearing more about that as the events as we go forward in the meeting. So, first we'll hear a presentation from the NRC Staf f member, the Proj ect Manager, on the results of the Environmental Review of Columbia Generating Station's License Renewal Application.

The presentation will be short to allow as much time as possible for the second part of the meeting, which is to listen to you and any comments that you would like us to take back, and that we will have on the record. We do have a court reporter here, so there will be transcript of today's proceeding.

There were yellow and blue cards on the table as you signed in, and the yellow cards were for those who plan to make comments at today' s meeting, and the blue cards were just for those who were here but wanted to be sure to be on our mailing list for the follow-up final publication.

We have several yellow cards from those of you who are here, and we also have cards from people who are on the 1 ine . We do have people calling in today, so we'll be taking comments from both you, the audience members, and the callers. 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 If you haven't filled out a card yet and you decide you want to speak once the meet gets going, that's okay. Just get my attention and well, actually, let me direct you to the back of the table where the sign-is, and just head over there for a yellow card and fill out, and I'll be aware of that, and maybe Mike will come up and bring me the yellow cards, if there are any more. We ask that you fill out the card not only so that we have a good list of people who spoke at the meeting, but we also would like it so we can get your name correct on the transcript.

And let me just take a minute here to ask if anyone has not yet signed in, please take the time to do so now before you forget. We just have a running list of people who are attending, and the sign-in table just as you walk in the door here. We're going to do our best -well, let me explain why it's important for us to have your sign-in and your names on the cards. As I mentioned, we are transcribing the meeting, and we do want to have as clean a record as possible, and we want to fully capture your comments, so we need your name, clear spelling of your last name, if we have it, or callers who are making comments, we'll ask them to remember to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 1 19 20 2 22 23 24 2 spell their last name certainly before making their comments.

We also ask that you keep any side conversations to a minimum so that the reporter can hear everything clearly, and that we just have one person speaking at a time so that everyone can hear what is going on, and we can continue moving the meeting forward. As I said, when you get up please -for the first time, please identify yourself by name. And if you're representing any organization on behalf making a comment on behalf of any organization, please let us know and that will also go into the transcript.

And it would also help very much to have a clean transcript if you have any electronic devices, if you could turn them off now, or at least put them on vibrate so that that doesn't interfere with the meeting, as well. We're going to do our best to answer --to address any questions that you might have about the results of the NRC's Environmental Review for Columbia, and possibly any other NRC regulatory topics that might come up, but we do ask that you please keep' in mind that we have only a few people from the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 8 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 here in this room l and we may not have the best person here to answer your question.

SOl we can always take your question back and get back to you I but just a head's up that we may not have the absolute right person to answer your individual question.

Other items. I'm hoping that when you signed in you picked up an NRC public feedback form. It's really important to us that we take back any comments I any insights, any criticisms l any positives that you have to communicate to us. We to give the best possible meeting that we can l but we also need your feedback to enable us to do that. would really appreciate getting your opinion on that form. And I as I say, if you haven I t picked one up alreadYI they're on the same table where the yellow and blue cards are l where the sign-in was. So I just a couple of housekeeping items before we get going. Restrooms for those who want to take a break are directly out the door you came in. Take a right, go all the way down the hall to the first place where you can turn left, and restrooms are on the right-hand side. Emergency exits, I doubt that we'll need it, but in case we do, the exits are certainly where you came And these two exit doors will lead to the 10bbYI as well. So, three doors in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 3 4 5 6 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 9 this room that lead directly to the lobby. This is not an exit door. It goes to the kitchen. You don't want to go there. We already have some callers who have identified themselves by name in advance of the meeting, so I think the process that we'll follow here is to take a few comments from the at the comment period time, we'll take a few comments from the audience, and then we'll turn to the phones. But for those people who are calling in, I will identify them by the names that we have, and I would also --because the goal is to, again, have one person speaking at a time, and we want to avoid any situation where callers are actually talking over each other. So, after we go over the names of the callers whose names we already have, I will ask if there are any other callers whose names I did not call who like to make a comment. And as I say, I know we have the names of some callers. understand some may be making comments and some may just be listening in. I've already, I think, emphasized enough that we're creating a transcript for the meeting, but bear with me. I'll one more time for the sake of the transcript, identify yourself, both callers and audience members by name, by organization, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 I

10 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 and callers, please spell your name for the record so we can keep it clear. Now, for those on the phone, again, anything --if the callers would remember to as a courtesy to all mute their phone by pressing *6. That way while the meeting is going on, we will not be distracted by any noise that's going on or distractions that are going on the room you happen to be listening to your call in. Also, with callers, if you could be sure to when you take a turn to make a comment if you could be aware that we will need your mailing address if you want to receive a final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement when they are ready to go. So, when you do if you do want to receive that, please identify a mailing address. Well, actually, the best thing would be for you to mail your address to Daniel Doyle who is the Project Manager for Columbia, who will be making the remarks immediately following my opening remarks here. And he can be reached I'll say it now daniel.doyle@nrc.gov. And if you didn't catch that, his name and contact information is on the Federal Register Notice, and it's up on the web. Finally, as a courtesy to all we do ask NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C, 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 2 that you conf your comments to five minutes. as an opportunity to -we see this is as an opportunity for you to be heard, but we do want those who need to leave on time be able to leave on time without missing any part of the meeting, anything that goes on. So, I want to take this opportunity to introduce some of the other NRC people who are here today. And I! 11 begin with David Wrona, the Branch Chief for the Division of License Renewal for the NRC; Daniel Doyle. He's the Environmental Project Manager for Columbia.

He's also with the Division of License Renewal. Michael Wentzel, who you met at the table. He's another Environmental Project Manager, again with the Division of License Renewal. Lara Uselding, there she is at the back of the room. She is the Senior Publ Affairs Officer for our Regional Office, Region IV in Texas. Do we have a Resident Inspector here today? Oh, okay. And that -you're Jeremy Groom? MR. HAYES: Mahdi Hayes. MS. FEHST: Oh, you're Mahdi Hayes. Okay, good. Hello, Mahdi, welcome. And if you'd like, you can stay back there, or join the rest of the NRC up here. With that, I'll hand the microphone over NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 1 to Daniel Doyle, who will make a presentation on the 2 results of the Environmental Review. 3 And we'll take a bit of time to explain 4 how to submit comments.

I'll be back when we move to 5 the second part of the meeting I so if you have any 6 questions about the material that is covered today, I'm going to ask that you hold your questions until Daniel finishes his remarks, and then if you have questions specifically on the presentation, I I 11 go around the room with a handheld mic and take each of 1 your comments or questions, clarifying questions at 12 that point on -in the order that I see the 13 questions.

And then we'll move to the publ comment 14 period. Thank you. 15 MR. DOYLE: Thank you t Gerri. My name is 16 Daniel Doyle, and before getting into my presentation, 17 I 'm actually going to do things ali t tle bit out of 18 order to accommodate a public official who has taken 19 some time to provide some comments here today, 20 Representative Brad Klippert is here. He has another 2 engagement that he needs to make it to, so what 1'm 22 going to do actually before starting my presentation 23 allow Representative Klippert to come up to the 24 podium and provide his comments.

Mr. Klippert.

25 MS. FEHST: And I also just wanted to give 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 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 1 1 2 22 23 24 2 13 a hello and welcome to Barbara Lisk, who is from U.S. Congressman Hastings's office. Thank you. And also David Reeploeg from U. S. Senator Cantwell's office. Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE KLIPPERT:

Well, if I didn't feel honored before, I do feel honored now. Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate your accommodating me in this way. I am Representative Brad Klippert of the washington State House of Representatives, and Klippert is spelled K-L-I-P-P-E-R-T.

And I just wanted to say thank you very much for this time to address you, the NRC. I actually worked on the Columbia Generating Station when was constructed, and helped pay my way to go to college by the construction of that site, so I can guarantee the soundness of that structure simply because I worked there. So, it's got to be good if I had a hand in the construction there. I also wanted to say that this is a very responsible steward in terms of our environment, this generating station. Zero, I say again, zero impact on our environment in terms of greenhouse gases. Is that great, all that power being produced by that one site without any greenhouses gases being emitted into the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C, 20005-3701 I

5 10 15 20 25 14 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 air. And it has secure onsite storage of used fuels, and that's something that's really important today. And we're talking about what are we going to do with all the used fuels from the past, where are we going to put them; Yucca Mountain and all that, and here's a place that has its own onsite storage for used fuels. It's safe, 's reliable.

I love going there and watching the sign how many days have gone past since an injury took place that resulted in a time loss accident, took place, and it goes on, and lIon, and on because they are so safety conscious there. 12 13 14 16 1 18 19 2 22 23 24 Redundant safety systems to ensure safety standards exceed the requirements.

I flew helicopters for the Army for 20 years, and we had two generators on that aircraft, two engines on that aircraft, five transmissions on that aircraft to make sure that that aircraft would stay in the air and keep flying. Redundant systems to ensure the safety and the production of power in that helicopter, and the same is true of Columbia Generating Station, redundant systems to insure the safety of the power that's being generated there. As an economic driver to this area, over 1,100 people are employed at Columbia Generating Station, and Energy Northwest creates more than $440 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 2 22 23 24 2 million into our economic activity in this area. Sustained strong economic recovery will require continued support of these reliable, cost-effective baseload resources.

I just took a tour as a member of the Transportation Committee this last week, and it's so important these days in our economy in Washington State and the United States as a whole to ensure that our exports --we do everything we can to keep our exports keep up with or exceed our imports. And because of the low-cost power that we produce here in Washington State, many corporations, many producers want to come here and produce their products and ship them all around the world because of the low-cost power that's produced right here by the Columbia Generating Station. So, I just would like to encourage you with all of my heart, as someone who believes in safe, reliable nuclear energy, that it would be a very wise thing on your part to extend the license for the Columbia Generating Station. Now, I've been told to ask for the next 20 years, but I've watched the Disney cartoons and I say let's extend that license to infinity and beyond. So, thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and have a great day. (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBE 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 RS www,nealrgross.com 5 10 15 20 25 16 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2 22 23 24 MR. DOYLE: Thank you. I'm now going to go into my presentation, and then we will have a question and answer period, and then we'll open it up to other publ comments.

Again, my name is Daniel Doyle. I'm the Project Manager at the NRC responsible for coordinating all environmental-related activities for the Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Application.

On A ugust 23 rd , the NRC published its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or Draft SEIS, related to the Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Application.

The Draft SEIS documents the NRC's preliminary review of the environmental impacts associated with renewing the Columbia Generating Station operating license for an additional 20 years. And today I'm going to present to you those results. I hope that the information provided will help you understand what we've done so far, and the role you can play in helping us make sure that the final Environmental Impact Statement is accurate and complete.

Just to point out one other thing for the callers, is that we do have the bridge line in a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 listen mode, so it's not necessary to mute the lines, but if you've already done that, I think that that's fine. But we have a moderator on the line, and when we get to the portion where we'll be asking for either questions or comments from the callers, we'll be switching from a listen-only mode to a participation mode. Here's the agenda for today's meeting. I'm sorry, one other thing I wanted to point out for the callers, again, is that if you're near a computer and you're not if you don't have the slides in front of you, if are near a computer you can go to the website, the NRC's website. If you go to Google and search for Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Application, click on that public website, these slides that I'm presenting here in the room today are available on the internet.

So, today I will discuss the NRC's regulatory role, the preliminary findings of our environmental review, including the power generation alternatives that were considered, and I'll present the current schedule for the remainder of the environmental review, and how you can submit comments after this meeting. After that, I'll take some time to briefly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 discuss a topic that is not related to the environmental review, but that is of interest to those in attendance, the NRC's response to Fukushima.

At the end of the presentation, there will be time for questions and answers on the environmental review process, and most importantly, time for you to present your comments on the Draft SErS. The NRC was established to regulate civilian uses of nuclear materials, including facilities that produce electric power. The NRC conducts license renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to operate them beyond their initial license period. NRC license renewal reviews address safety issues related to managing the effects of aging, and environmental issues related to an additional 20 years of operation.

In all aspects of the NRC's regulation, the Agency's mission is to ensure adequate protection of publ ic health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment.

We're here today to discuss the potential site specific impacts of license renewal at Columbia Generating Station. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or GElS, examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a result of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 19 1 renewing licenses of individual nuclear power plants 2 under 10 CFR Part 54. The GElS, to the extent 3 possible, establishes the bounds and significance of 4 these potential impacts. The analyses in the GElS encompass all operating light water power reactors for each type of environmental impact. The GElS attempts to establish 8 generic findings covering as many plants as possible.

9 For some environmental issues, the GElS found that a 10 generic evaluation was not sufficient, and that a 1 plant specific analysis was required.

12 The site-specific findings for Columbia 13 Generating Station are contained in the Draft 14 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, or Draft 23 rd 1 SEIS, which was published on August of this year. 16 This document contains analyses of all applicable 17 si te-specific issues as well as a review of issues I 18 covered by the GElS to determine whether the 19 conclusions in the GElS are valid for Columbia 20 Generating Station. 2 In this process the NRC Staff also l 22 reviews the environmental impacts of potential power 23 generation alternatives to license renewal to 24 determine whether the impacts expected from license 25 renewal are unreasonable.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 For each environmental issue identified an impact level is assigned.

The NRC's standard of significance for impacts was established using the White House Council on Environmental Quality terminology for significant.

The NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts i small, moderate, and large. For a small impact, the effects are not detectible, or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resources.

For a moderate impact, the effects are sufficient to alter noticeably but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

For a large impact, the effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

This slide lists the site-specific issues NRC Staff reviewed for the continued operation of Columbia Generating Station during the proposed license renewal period. The section of the Draft SEIS addressing each of these issues is also shown here. And, as discussed on the previous slide, each issue was assigned a level of environmental impact of small, moderate, or large by the environmental reviewers.

The Staff's preliminary conclusion is that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal for each of these issues is small. When reviewing the potential impacts of license renewal on the environment, the NRC also looks at the effects on the environment from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future human actions. These effects, referred to as cumulative impacts, not only include the operation of Columbia Generating Station, but also impacts from activities unrelated to the plant, such as the radioactive waste disposal, and tank waste stabilization and closure at Hanford, the proposed reduction of the Hanford site footprint, the cleanup of radioactive waste burial grounds 618-10 and 618 II, proposed construction of new energy projects, and climate change. Past actions are those related to the resources before the receipt of the license renewal application.

Present actions are those related to the resources at the time of current operation of the plant. And future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant operation, including the period of extended operation.

Therefore, the analysis considers potential impacts through the end of the current license term, as well as the 20-year license renewal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 10 15 20 25 22 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2 22 23 24 term. For water resources, NRC preliminarily concluded that there are small to large cumulative impacts due to DOE activities on Hanford depending on the location.

For aquatic resources, impacts are large due to past alterations of aquatic habitat and fish passage along the Columbia River. For cultural resources, ongoing construction, restoration, and waste management activities on the Hanford site have the potential to significantly affect cultural resources, particularly within the viewshed of Gable and Rattlesnake Mountains.

Therefore, the cumulative impacts would be moderate.

In other areas NRC considered, the Staff preliminarily concluded that cumulative impacts are small. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates that each Environmental Impact Statement consider alternatives to any proposed major federal action. The major step in determining whether license renewal is reasonable or not is comparing the likely impacts of continued operation of the nuclear power plant with the likely impacts of alternative means of power generation.

Al ternati ves must provide an option 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 5 10 15 20 25 23 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2 22 23 24 allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power ant operating license to meet future system generating needs. In the Draft SEIS, the NRC initially considered 18 different alternatives.

After this initial consideration, the Staff then chose the three most likely, and analyzed those in depth. Finally, the NRC considered what would happen if no action is taken and Columbia Generating Station shuts down at the end of its current license without a specific replacement alternative.

This alternative would not provide power generation capacity, nor would it meet the needs currently met by Columbia Generating Station. The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that the impacts from energy alternatives would vary widely based on the characteristics of the alternatives.

In most cases, construction of new facilities would create significant impacts. All alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by Columbia Generating Station entail impacts greater than or equal to the proposed action of license renewal. Based on a review of the potent environmental impacts from license renewal and alternatives to license renewal, the NRC Staff's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 24 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 2 preliminary recommendation in the Draft SEIS is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Columbia Generating Station are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers.

I would like to emphasize that the environmental review is not yet complete.

Your comments today, and all written comments received by 16 th the end of the comment period on November will be considered by the NRC as we develop the final SEIS, which we currently plan to issue in February 2012. Those comments that are within the scope of the environmental review and provide new and significant information can help change the Staff's findings.

The final SEIS will contain the Staff I s final recommendation on the acceptability of license renewal based on the work we've already performed, and the comments we receive during the comment period. I am the primary contact for the environmental review; the contact for the safety review is Arthur Cunanan. Hard copies of the Draft SEIS are available on the table in the back of the room, as are copies On CD. In addition, the Richland Public Library and the Kennewick Branch Library have agreed to make hard copies available for public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 2 review. You can also find electronic copies of the Draft SEIS along with other information about the Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Review on line on the website on this screen, which is also included the handout. The NRC will address written comments in the same way we address spoken comments received today. You can submit written comments either via conventional mail, fax, or online. To submit written comments online visit the website regulations.gov and search for keyword or ID NRC-2010-0029.

If you have written comments this afternoon you may give them to any NRC Staff member. Again, to ensure consideration 16 th comments must be received by Wednesday, November , 2011. The notes that I copied on to this ide are not the notes for this slide, so that's a good plan for future preparation for checking the notes on the slides. But I can handle it. This --we added this slide for NRC's response to Fukushima because we're aware that this is a topic of significant publ interest, so we wanted to address it. We wanted to point out that the NRC's response to Fukushima is a current operating issue. The results from -or actions that are -decisions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 2 that are made by the NRC will apply to all plants that currently have license regardless of license renewal status. So, this is not within the scope of the environmental review. Following the earthquake and tsunami and events at Fukushima in Japan earlier this year, the NRC took several specific steps. We had increased inspections at operating facilities to determine their ability to respond to emergencies per their existing guidelines.

The NRC created a near-term task force to look at --to review the information that was available from the event and generate short term recommendations for how the NRC can move forward, or potential actions to take to make U.S. nuclear facilities more safe. 12 th The NRC issued its report on July , 2011. One of their conclusions was that continued operations and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. There is a NRC Staff paper on the prioritization of 3 rd the task force recommendations due on October , so the NRC Staff will have more information in that report on which actions can be taken without further delay. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 27 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 2 22 23 24 2S There's more information about NRC actions in response to Fukushima on this webs i te. On this slide, there's a link, if you go to the main NRC website, NRC.gov, there's a link on the left side to I believe it says "Japan Accident NRC Action," so the task force report is available there. I also brought hard copies of the NRC's task force recommendations.

They're available in the back of the room. And, again, as I said, they're available on the website. Before moving into receiving your comments, we'd like to give you an opportunity to ask questions that you may have about the presentation that I just gave. Please wait for the facilitator, Gerri Fehst, to bring the microphone to you so we can ensure that your comments are captured on the transcript.

We will take comments from people in the room, or questions from people in the room, and then I'll open up the phone line for people on the phone if they want to ask questions.

And once we've taken any init questions that you may have for me or about the presentation, we will then move into the comment portion of the meeting where I'll be calling the people who had filled out the yellow cards, or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 5 10 15 20 25 28 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 1 18 19 2 22 23 24 indicated that they wanted to provide comments over the phone, to provide their comments.

And that's where we'll --that's when we'll take those comments.

So, I would be happy to take any questions you may have at this time. Does anybody in the room have any questions?

Yes, sir? Can you just wait for one minute, please? MS. FEHST: One minute, please. I'll bring you the mic so everyone can hear what you have to say. Excuse me. MR. POLLET: So, I have two questions.

The first is in regard to the location of the CGS station on the Hanford nuclear reservation.

And have -does the EIS -I've not seen it in my review. Is there any documentation of consideration of the unique accident consequences elsewhere at Hanford in combination with an event at CGS that affects all the facili ties on the Hanford nuclear reservation at the same time? MR. DOYLE: There is not. So, I understand your question is about whether or not the Environmental Impact Statement specifically addresses the fact that there could be radiological accidents or other accidents at Hanford, and that -so, the answer is no, that that's not addressed in the Draft SEIS. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .* NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 2 2 22 23 24 25 29 What we do talk about is the cumulative environmental impact say on groundwater and air, other things that other environmental impacts that other facilities or waste burial grounds, or past actions at Hanford may have on the environment, and how that --the impact from the plant would relate to those, basically.

But there are emergency response documents that the plant required to maintain.

I forget the term for it. I believe it's like an Emergency Response Plan, I think, so these are --I believe the best thing for -to address your question would be that there are current documents that the plant required to maintain explaining how they would respond. to offsite accidents, like a fire or something like that. MR. POLLET: But aren't you in the EIS aren I t we entitled to see the cumulative impact and how you would recover? I mean, you discuss design-basis accidents and beyond design-basis accidents.

Right? And including population dose and recovery, and mitigation requirements for accidents.

All that is in there. For most reactors around the country, I guess for every other reactor around the country you don't have a combination of the same design-basis earthquake could release massive amounts of radioactive and chemical material into the air because NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 they're not located on anything like the Hanford nuclear reservation with high level nuclear waste tanks that aren't so, telling me to look at the emergency plan isn't relevant to what's in here, it seems to me. MR. DOYLE: Right. There is a section, as you said, that talks about design-basis accidents and severe accidents.

That would be in Chapter 5. And what we I re doing in that section of the document is talking about what the environmental impacts of those two categories of accidents would be in the license renewal period. So, the design-basis

-there is a basic discussion there, but I think the ultimate answer is that no, that there's not a specific discussion of the fact that the plant is located on Hanford, and sounds to me like you're essentially making a comment that you think that it should. And that's a fair comment, and if you want to take that, then we can respond to that. But the answer to your question is no, that I s not specifically discussed in the discussion of design-basis accidents and severe accidents.

So, the answer is no. MR. POLLET: Thank you. That will help me make a comment, because I didn't know if we just missed it in the review, if there are associated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 2 documents.

My second question for Heart of America Northwest is in regard to the alternatives analysis.

Who decided that the alternative analysis for electrical generation or conservation and efficiencies should be 1300 some odd megawatts, or 1350 when the reactor itself doesn't produce that? MR. DOYLE: I'm not familiar with that number in the document or where that essentially, you're pointing out that there's a discrepancy between the alternative, and that it's producing more power than what the plant is. And that's maybe creating a higher impact for the alternative.

So that, again, would be a fair comment. If that's stated in the Draft SEIS, that's not fresh in my memory right now, what the electrical capacity of the alternatives that we stated is. But the basic intent is to see how could we replace the power generation of the plant. So, if you think that there's a discrepan cy there then, again, that would be more of a comment on the SEIS. But that I s what we were trying to do. And who made the decision for those alternatives is the NRC Staff that are working on it. We I re supported by contractors that we have, experts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 32 2 3 4 6 7 8 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 2 22 23 24 25 that are able to review potential alternatives and determine what those impacts would be, and write up the basis for their decisions and explain that in Chapter 8 of the document.

So, Chapter 8 addresses the concerns and the basis for our decisions of what the reasonable alternatives are. MR. POLLET: Thank you. MS. FEHST: And also for the record, could we get you to identify yourself by name, and if you're representing an organization?

MR. POLLET: Sure, Gerry with a G, Pollet, P-O-L-L-E-T, representing Heart of America Northwest Regionwide izens Group. MS. FEHST: Thank you. MR. DOYLE; Does anyone else in the room have questions about the presentation or the process, or anything else before we open up the phone 1 to see if there are any comments from people who have called in? MS. OLIVER; Are you taking comments from people in the audience?

MR. DOYLE: We will absolutely move into taking comments from people in the audience.

What we! re doing right now is seeing if there are any questions before I step down, any sort of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 2 33 clarifications, or could you go back to that slide, or just general process questions before moving into taking comments.

So, yes, we will definitely accept comments from people the room. MS. OLIVER: Yes, my name is Marlene Oliver. I represent a number of organizations, although I don't speak for all of them. I do represent Fighting Children's Cancer Foundation.

I have a background in cancer and working with National Cancer Institute and with the American Nuclear society as a local member. One of my questions has to deal with neutron dosimetry and plant aging. We have a lab here at Hanford that works with reactors allover the world to determine how well they're holding up with time. And I'm wondering if the nuclear plant here was included in that analysis of plant aging with neutron dosimetry, for example. MR. DOYLE: There is a separate safety review that is looking at how the plant is going to adequately manage the effects of aging for passive long lived structures, so I believe that neutron embrittlement is one of the issues that they are looking at there. They're looking at how --for structures 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 10 15 20 25 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 34 that are within the scope of license renewal, they're looking at how they can adequately maintain.

not sure if that answers your question.

I'm not specifically familiar with whether or not neutron dosimetry is used. I'm not sure exactly if I understand what your question is there, but yes, plant aging is absolutely part of the NRC! s review. Itls part of the safety review. And then managing the effects of aging on certain structures so I don I t I know if that answers your question.

MS. FEHST: And againl just a reminder that this is the period to ask clarifying questions of the actual presentation.

And immediately following this weill go into opening it up for public comment. Okay? MR. DOYLE: Okay. Any other questions from people in the room? Okay. I think we have a moderator on the phone, Tamara. Are you th ere? MR. LOPER: Hello? MR. DOYLE: Yes l I can hear you. MR. LOPER: Okay. I have one question.

And, also to let you know the phone lines have l dropped the beginning portion so the people on the phone only were able to hear the end of your comment. MR. DOYLE: Okay. MR. LOPER: Part of my comment is we urge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 35 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 you to stop relicensing the plants until after we learn what caused the damage, and what happened at the Fukushima reactors.

I'm just wondering what does the EIS say about MOX fuel? MS. FEHST: Caller, if I could respond to you just quickly. I'm a moderator here in the room, and right now the -it's time just to take clarifying questions on what the presentation provided when Daniel Doyle was making his presentation about the Draft SEIS. And immediately following clarifying questions, we are going to go into the public comment period. And it sounds as though your remarks would fall into the category of public comment. MR. LOPER: That's correct. I'm sorry, me on the phone, I called in at 2:00 and I did not hear any of the presentation that he gave. MS. FEHST: I'm very sorry about that. I'm sorry that we had technical difficulties.

I can refer you to -Dan, you mentioned where the callers, people who are calling can find the actual PowerPoint presentati on that you ha ve just made? MR. DOYLE: Yes. The slides that we're* presenting here in the meeting are on the website. If you go to Google and search for NRC Columbia Generating Station License Renewal, the first result 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 10 15 20 25 36 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2 22 23 24 that pops up there should be the NRC's public website for this review. And if you scroll down, there's a subheading that says II Public Meetings," and then there's the slides in there. So, I MR. LOPER: Thank you. MR. DOYLE: expanded on the slides with my remarks. I apologize for you not being able to hear that, and the transcript will be released later if you want to read that later. Also, later this evening there's going to be another meeting starting at 7:00 where I'm going to go through the same remarks. But just to --I can point you to one page in the Draft SEIS you were talking about, the discussion of mixed oxide fuel or MOX fuel. There is just a brief discussion.

It's on page 2 2, the second paragraph there where the NRC Staff is basically just stating that we are aware of the --I forget what it was called. There was a --basically, like an initial feasibility study or something that environmental group became aware of. There was a newspaper article printed about We did talk to the applicant and our brief summary of that issue is on page 2 2. Are there any other questions from callers on the phone? MODERATOR TAMARA: If there is a question, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 the line is open. PARTICIPANT:

Yes, I just wanted to make a comment, but I'll wait. MR. DOYLE: Okay, so she'll wait until the comment period. Any other comments from callers on the phone, or any other questions?

I'm sorry. MODERATOR TAMARA: Your line is open. PARTICIPANT:

Yes, I am going to wait until the comment period. MODERATOR TAMARA: We show no further questions.

MS. FEHST: I'm sorry, caller. I think you were kind of breaking up. Could you repeat that, please? MODERATOR TAMARA: We show no further questions.

MS. FEHST: Oh, okay. MR. DOYLE: Okay, great. Thank you. So, that concludes the question and answer period. We're now going to shift the meeting into receiving your public comments.

We'll be taking comments both from people in the room and on the phone. And the facilitator, Gerri, is going to moderate this portion of the meeting. MS. FEHST: Okay. As Dan said, we're going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 to transition to the public comment period now, and I have several yellow cards in my hand from audience members who would like to make a comment. And I also have cards, as I said earlier, from some identifying callers that we have on the line. I'm not sure ever caller who's listening in has a question.

So, for those names that I already have, I will callout your name when the time comes. And if you have a comment to make at that time, please do. And if you don't, we'll just pass. And then at the end, I'll ask if there are any callers on the line whose names I haven't called. So, we'll try to get everyone's voice heard today who has a comment that they would like to make. Again, this is the time for comments on the results of the NRC's environmental review for the license renewal application for Columbia.

And we ask that you confine your comments to this subject. And a reminder once again that we do need to end the meeting on time as a courtesy to those who have to leave on schedule, and that they shouldn I t have to miss any part of the meeting because some comments or question have gone on too long. So, we do ask that you keep the focus on the comments, on the subject at hand, and that you limit the comments to five minutes. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 39 And if you have a question, we may try to give a brief answer. But as a reminder, we may not have the right NRC expert in the room at this meeting. And if we can't help you with a question, your specif question, we'll certainly try to get back to you as a follow-up to this meeting. And if you're looking for an in-depth conversation, we do ask that you hold that and meet with some of the NRC Staff after the meeting, so that again we can move things along, but that you can still have an opportunity to speak with NRC and get your question addressed.

So, as a reminder, and people have been good about this, but remember when you step up to the podium to make your comment, please identify yourself by name again for the reporter in the back. And, also, if you're representing an organization, please let us know on whose behalf you are speaking.

And as all of us the room, let's try to give respect and attention to the person who is at the mic here at the podium making their comments.

Let's try to remember to keep one person at a time. What I'll do is identify three audience members, and ask the first speaker to come up and begin their remarks, but the second two names that I 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 mentioned, you'll still be seated in the audience, but you'll know that you'll be the next two people to come up, so that you can begin preparing your remarks, and we can keep things moving. And after the first three speakers from the audience, then we'll turn to the phones and ask for a caller to make their remarks. And, again, if I -I will ask at the end even for audience, if I has everyone been heard, and ask you to 11 out a yellow card if you haven't, if in the course of the meeting you decide that you do want to make a comment. It won't be too late. So, just fill out a card and I'll get it, and we'll begin that process. Okay. So, the first speaker will be Colin Hastings, Tri-City Regional Chamber, followed by Marlene Oliver, followed by Lori Sanders. MR. HASTINGS:

Thank you. Colin Hastings, Vice President, -City Regional Chamber of Commerce.

On behalf of the Tri Ci ty Regional Chamber of Commerce, is my honor to support Energy Northwest for their license renewal application for the Columbia Generating Station with NRC. Columbia Generating Station and Energy Northwest has been a vital part of the region's energy mix, and has consistently provided vast amounts of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 5 10 15 20 25 41 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2 22 23 24 clean and affordable power to homes and businesses across the northwest.

Energy Northwest has operated Columbia Generating Station as a responsible steward to the environment, and in a manner that protects public health and safety. Washington State and Tri-Cities region enjoys some of the lowest electrical utility rates in the United States because of the federal hydroelectric system Columbia Generating Station. Economic recovery will require continued support for these reliable, clean, low-cost, baseload power sources. Renewal of this operating license is vital to meeting the region's electricity needs. It will help ensure a reasonable cost of power for households and businesses to drive a strong economy. Energy Northwest shows us their commitment to the region by their activities in the community and associations like ours. They're an integral part of this area, and deserve license renewal so they can continue to offer us clean and affordable energy. On behalf of the Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce and its Board of Directors, we support their efforts to secure license renewal for the Columbia Generating Station with the NRC. Thank you. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 10 15 20 25 42 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2 22 23 24 MS. FEHST: Okay, you're next. MS. OLIVER: Yes. My name is Marlene Oliver. I have several hats. I do not speak for the American Nuclear Society, although I am a member thereof of the local section. I also have a graduate degree in fresh water ecology. I I ve also worked on cancer issues for many years with the National Cancer Institute as a consumer advocate for research and related activity, and head up the Fighting Children's Cancer Foundation, and I just have a few questions to make sure that these items might be included in the document and addressed thereof. We already addressed the issue of plant aging and dosimetry, which impacts directly reactor safety. Hopefully t that question will be adequately answered with the proper testing. I wanted to address alternative energYt and energy density. The energy density of nuclear fuel is the densest known to man. The cost to build alternative energy sources t such as windmills t et cetera t speaking as an ecologist now t is far higher than the energy projected to come from those windmills for a long time. It also disrupts bird migration patterns, et cetera, et cetera. As far as waste transmutation goes, this (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 43 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 2 22 23 24 2 is the norm in Europe and most of the rest of the world. We might call it recycling.

It's against the law in the United States. That issue would have to be addressed by Congress, and hopefully members of the public can get Congress to reverse their decision made in the Carter years to not recycle, so to speak, their nuclear waste. As far as cancer goes, on a scale of one to ten using National Cancer Institute statistics going back to 1950, and hopefully this information will be included in the document.

Cancer is rated on a scale of one to ten, ten being highest, how much cancer per unit of population, for example, in the State of Washington.

It goes county by county across the United States. There is only one county in the State of Washington that rates a ten out of ten being highest, more incidents of cancer per person than any other county in the state, and that is King County. At the Hanford site, we rate a five out of ten, which is average. Across the river in Franklin County, we rate a four out of ten, which is below average. And I hope the document takes these items into consideration.

Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay. As I say, the next caller the next is Lori Sanders, come on up. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 then the first caller will be Mark Loper. Mark, are you there? Or Rachel Stierling.

We'll come back to Mark later. Is there a Rachel Stierling on the phone? Or Jane. MODERATOR TAMARA: Rachel, your 1 is open. MS. FEHST: I'm sorry? MR. DOYLE: The moderator.

MS. STIERLING:

I'm sorry. I'm still having technical difficulty with the phone line, and I'm not hearing very well at all, so I'll pass at this time. MS . FEHST : Okay. We'll get back to the callers then. MS. SANDERS: Thank you. Hello, I I m Lori Sanders. I'm also a new member of the American Nuclear Society, the local branch. I'm a Benton PUD Commissioner, and 11m on the Executive Board of Energy Northwest.

And I I m also a member of this community for the past 52 years, so I gave something away there. But what I would like to talk about today, I want to echo a lot of what Colin said, hitt the major points of the benefits of columbia Generating Station. But one that I really want to emphasize is the baseload generation.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N,W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 45 At Benton PUD, we are faced with, as many PUDs in the state are faced with, meeting a renewable portfolio standard.

And it's difficult because the wind just doesn't blow all the time. And we are really concerned about what the future is going to look like for our generation portfolio.

And we really would like to emphasize that it's good to have this resource in our community that is reliable and consistent, and produces a lot of megawatts.

I believe you would need about 1,000 wind turbines to produce what Columbia Generating Station produces.

So, from a visual pollution point of view, I hike up on Rattlesnake Mountain about three times a week, and I look out at the area. And I can see a few wind turbines over here, and that looks nice. And I can see Columbia Generating Station over here, and that looks nice, but I wouldn't want to see 1,000 wind turbines.

I much prefer the small footprint of Energy Northwest, and the baseload that it gives us. And I'd like to say that the ratepayers in Benton County support the continued operation of Columbia Generating Station and the pursuit of the license renewal. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay. Shall we try the phones again? Okay. I'll start with the first name again, (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBE 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 RS W\\IW.nealrgross.com 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 Mark Loper. MR. LOPER: Can you hear me? MS. FEHST: Okay, go ahead, Mark. MR. LOPER: Thank you. Okay. I have three quick comments.

I ask that the risk of using MOX fuel be included in the EIS. I ask that no further actions be taken until the risk of the Fukushima events are fully analyzed, so that we can understand what happened there. And then I ask that until the NRC incorporates necessary new requirements, to wait to take further action and that new information be made easily available to the public at large. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you. That was succinct.

Thank you. All right. We'll have the oppor tunity now for three more speakers from those in the audience.

In order of priority here we'll first hear from Larry Haler, State Representative Larry Haler, to be followed by Gerry Pollet, to be followed by Carl Holder. So, those are the next three speakers.

First, Larry Haler, Gerry Pollet, and Carl Holder. MR. HALER: Thank you very much. I guess for the record, my name is Larry Haler. I'm State Representative for the Eighth District.

I represent the Tri-Cities area, Prosser, Benton City, and West NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.* (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 47 Richland.

I'm here mainly to talk today about what I see and know as the economic benef its of having a nuclear power station, a reliable one such as Energy Northwest has with the Columbia Generating Station. . They have a highly skilled workforce of 1,100 people. That's 1,100 people that we need to keep in this communi ty, especially in a time of, I don't want to call this a recession, I think we're in a depression economically nationwide, and I don't think we've accepted that yet. We're losing jobs left and right. We're going to lose 3,500 jobs total by the end of October at the Hanford site, and we need those 1,100 jobs in this community.

They're highly skilled people, and it does add to our job base, as well as to our economy because they're out there buying durable goods, which we need to have purchased.

And they're also buying homes. Energy Northwest itself creates $440 million of economic activity in this area. We need that kind of purchasing power and spending power by Energy Northwest, and by the Station itself, because that does provide us with a great deal of money in this community that we all need. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.CO!n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 48 Energy Northwest also supplies a reliable baseload of energy. Somebody just mentioned wind turbines.

Wind turbines are only 20 percent efficient, at best, and I know that the west side of the state is constantly looking after building more wind turbines in hopes that we can have more wind over here to turn more wind turbines, but it just doesn't work that way. We need the baseload not only from Energy Northwest and the Columbia Generating Station, but we need it as well from renewal resources from the hydro darns. In general, Energy Northwest is a good neighbor.

They have been a good neighbor for 25 years, and I would encourage the NRC, as well as this community to support the relicensing of this facility.

Thank you very much. MS. FEHST: Thank you. Next, Gerry Pollet, to be followed by Carl Holder. MR. POLLET: Gerry Pollet speaking for Heart of America Northwest.

And let me start by saying the relicensing and proposed extension of the operation of the sole commercial reactor in the northwest until 2043 is a major issue of great regional significance and interest.

No one can deny that. And, therefore, it is sad that the NRC and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 2 49 applicant, Energy Northwest, have refused to hold hearings around the region, especially around the State of Washington where the owners of the plant reside, and the people who use the electricity.

And we urge you to revis this question as we've requested, and to hold hearings on the question of extending this reactor's operation to 2043 in Seattle, in Snohomish, Clark, and the other major utility areas that own this reactor. Secondly, we formally request that the NRC extend the comment period on this Environmental Impact Statement until such time as both Energy Northwest the applicant

--and the Energy Department respond to Public Records Act requests and Freedom of Information Act requests that are essential to allow the public to comment fully on the proposals.

There are significant issue areas l particularly the proposed use of plutonium fuel that Energy Northwest has refused to make documents public in regard tOI and has informed us that they will not respond to that request in full until a month and a half after the close of the comment period. That's unacceptable.

And the NRC I as long as you are conducting a NEPA process and there is an issue in regard to a related proposal I the NRC should be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2 50 cognizant of it and say we cannot close the comment period until the information is available from the applicant to the public. Energy Northwest and the Energy Department have a formal proposal to use highly dangerous plutonium fuel in this reactor. It is missing from the Environmental Impact Statement except to acknowledge that you are aware of it. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the NRC is required to include in the EIS the potential impacts from all related proposals.

At this point in time, Energy Northwest, and a sister federal agency, the Energy Department, have entered into agreements, and the Energy Department has entered into work orders with Pacific Northwest Lab and others to study the use of plutonium fuel in the reactor. The Energy Northwest I s own technical report distributed after Fukushima, where Reactor 3 used plutonium fuel, acknowledged that if Reactor 3 had a full load of MOX or plutonium fuel, MOX for mixed oxide fuel, that it might have increased the offsite radiation dose from what is already a horrific accident by 40 percent. The region deserves to have this debated in public, not behind closed doors, not in biased briefings that never mention these risks to NEALRGROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C. 20005-3701 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 12 13 14 1 1 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 the Energy Northwest Utility Member Boards. And the way to do this is to put it in the EIS with full discussion of the risks. How am I doing on time, Gerri? MS. FEHST: You have about two more minutes. Thank you for asking. MR. POLLET: Thank you. The risks of using plutonium fuel are not only the risks of a severe accident.

The proposal is to use the contaminated' and dangerous 325 Building at Hanford to make the plutonium fuel, and to assay it. That would lead to creation of more waste at Hanford, and more severe problems.

And there is the related issue of transportation of the weapons-grade plutonium to be made into the plutonium fuel without any debate here. It used to be when the FFTF reactor was operating and you wanted to move plutonium fuel from the 300 area where it was fabricated to the reactor, you had a helicopter, rocket-propelled grenade guard force to move the fuel three miles. Now we're talking about moving plutonium, weapons-grade plutonium fuel back to the region without any consideration of the security risks, and at what price? And the issue of the 325 Building raises NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NoW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross,com 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 the fact that this Environmental Impact Statement draft fails to consider the unique location of the CGS reactor the middle of the Hanford nuclear reservation.

The 325 Building, as an example, is one that will not withstand the same earthquake as it is said -claimed that CGS will withstand.

The high-level waste tanks will not withstand that earthquake.

There are numerous facilities at Hanford that will not withstand that earthquake, and there isn't any mention or consideration of how you recover, for instance, bringing diesel fuel and do the backup to restore power to the plant, which is vi tal, as we all have seen in light of Fukushima, when there are numerous nuclear and chemical accidents occurring and releases occurring at the same time from which recovery is attempted at the same time at the Hanford nuclear reservation.

We'll be testifying more on the fact that we believe firmly that this EIB fails to consider that the power from this reactor can be replaced by 2023 at low-cost and with great reliability for the region. Thank you. And I want to thank the NRC for making available the phone line. With just five days of notice, I believe 36 people have signed up to be on the phone with just five days of notice. It shows the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 2 need for having meetings around the region for the public to be able to address you face-to-face.

Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay. Thank you for your comments.

Carl Holder, and then we'll be turning to the phones, and maybe doing three callers in a row. MR. HOLDER: My name is Carl Holder. I'm representing myself, a member of the community, and a taxpayer.

I'm an energy consultant, and I believe that the energy from --the baseload energy from the Columbia Generating Station is a vital part of our community.

It represents a terrific economic force not only now, but well into the future. The facility, as I see it and as I read is perfectly sound, should go ahead. It should be approved expeditiously, as to eliminate any doubt. In regard to a potential for the use of different kinds of fuel, there's a terrific process for any type of valuation going forward, and any different fuel than they're using would require an exhaustive research, must be maybe a decade in the future, if at all. So I as far as the use of a different fuel is concerned I I see that as an unnecessary roadblock in going forward. The terrific use of the ability of (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 10 15 20 25 54 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 1 21 22 23 24 Columbia Generating Station to achieve low-cost power for our region, to be able to work in concert with the river system and with the potential for renewable wind energy. And as many people have noticed, wind energy in this part of the world, it may be 20 percent at best, but I like to say it's either on or off. Our society does not work on energy that is off. We need the baseload energy of the Columbia Generating Station, and thank you for expeditiously moving this forward. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comments.

Okay. We'll turn to the phone once again, and the three callers who are next in line, and again just say pass if you are on the line but don't have a comment. But, certainly, when I call your name if you have a comment, please provide it. The three next names are first, Rachel Stierling.

Second, Jane Boyajian, and third, Charles Johnson. MS. STIERLING:

Hi, this is Rachel Stierling.

And I'm going to hold my comments for the 7: 00 call this evening, but I appreciate you calling on me. MS. FEHST: Thank you. Okay, good. We'll move on to Jane Boyajian.

Jane Boyaj ian, are you 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 5 10 15 20 25 55 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 (No response.)

MS. FEHST; Are we on? MR. DOYLE: She's not there. MS. FEHST: Okay. Charles Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, hello. Can you hear me? MS. FEHST: Yes, we can. Thank you. Go ahead. MR. JOHNSON: I'm Charles Johnson. I'm calling in from Portland, Oregon. I'm on the Board of Columbia Riverkeepers.

I'm speaking on my own behalf today. First thing I guess I want to say is that I have to recognize

-all of us who are participating in this hearing need to recognize that this process of NRC relicensing has been going on for several years at this point, and as I understand, that there has not been a single plant applying for relicensing that has not been relicensed.

So, I think that's one thing that the NRC needs to be looking at right now, particularly in light of the fact that the Fukushima reactor was considered to be a very safe reactor by the Japanese nuclear authorities up until it had its postal meltdown.

And I guess the question that you at the NRC should be asking yourselves is which of these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 reactors that you're now rubber stamping and relicensing is -could be in 30 years, over the next 30 years, I should say, the next Fukushima, or the next Chernobyl.

Obviously, wouldn't be a Chernobyl.

It's not a Chernobyl design, but you do have some Fukushima type reactors.

Several things have already been discussed.

And there are similarities to designs between the reactor at Hanford and some of the problematic factors at Fukushima.

So, that being said, that's one of the technical arguments, but that is something that think the NRC should seriously consider, consider these relicensings.

And should, in my opinion, delay relicensing this reactor and all other reactors until --Fukushima, and what scenarios might create a similar situation at one of our reactors.

So, I think it's --particularly when you consider that this plant is licensed through 2023. Where is the fire in relicensing this reactor? It is way premature to be rushing forward relicensing a reactor that still has another 12 years of acti ve license. Particularly, when you consider that none of these reactors were designed initially to last longer than 40 years. They're all on borrowed time, so why would we want to NEALRGROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 I

57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 1 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 1 1 be rushing forward? We want a large cadre of reactors way ahead of time, particularly in this case definitely 12 years ahead of time. Particularly with unanswered questions, such as the ones that Gerry raised dealing with plutonium fuel potentially that might be used at the site. The questions of other accidents that may occur at that site. There are questions being raised currently with the plant for the high-level radioactive waste that is being built in the central plateau at Hanford. Questions

--some scientists there believe that there's a possibility of a criticality accident at that plant. What impact would that have upon the operation of Columbia Generating Station? That's a question that you haven't considered, and 's one that you should. Finally, this is not a technical reason for running the plant or not running the plant, but it keeps coming up in the pro side of the argument that this is a firm load plant, baseload plant. By gosh, you need it for that reason. The problem with that argument is that this plant was shut down in May, and just recently was started up again. Nuclear power plants are baseload when they're running, but when they're not running, they're a very large chunk of power that you have to replace. So, there are pluses NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 58 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 and minuses in terms of baseload versus nuclear power plant. And it's not all plus r if you have to put all your eggs in one generating basket, so to speakr because when they periodically have to shut it down for refueling or if there's a problem or if there were an accident that released any radiation whatsoever, that possibly shut the plant down for a long period of time r you have to replace all of that power. large generating stations inherently have that particular problem associated with them, and nuclear power plants as well. So, I appreciate the time and the fact that you made it easy for those of us who were able to take time in the afternoon and make a phone call and listen to some testimony over a sticky phone line to testify todaYr I really do believe that you should be holding hearings throughout the region, particularly in the hometowns of the utilities that own the Columbia Generating Station so that the people who the public utilities

--are the owners of those plants have an opportunity to be able to testify. And I hope that you'll reconsider that decision as you were urged to do by Heart of America Northwest.

Thank you ve ry much for your time. MS. FEHST: Thank you, caller. Thank you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 59 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 for your comment. Let's take one other caller, if she's on the line, she or he, and then we'll turn back to the audience.

If there's an M.C. Goldberg on the 1 ine and ready to make a comment, we'll take your comment. And then that would be followed by Gary Petersen and Gary Troyer. So, first, M.C. Goldberg on the line. Is there an M.C. Goldberg on the line? Are we okay with the phone? MODERATOR TAMARA: We do not show an M. C . Goldberg on the phone line. MS. FEHST: Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Is there a yes, there is. Gary Petersen.

Okay, and please spell your name, and identify the organization you're representing, if any. MR. PETERSEN:

Yes. My name is Gary Petersen, P-E-T-E-R-S-E-N.

I represent TRIDEC. I'm the Vice President of TRIDEC. Let me just start by saying I believe that I'm very uniquely qualified to speak today. I happen to live and have lived within 10 miles of the plant ever since it was buil t and started up. I have a daughter, my eldest daughter, who worked out there for a period of time within the plant. If there was anybody who had any concern whatsoever about that reactor you would think it would be the people who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 60 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 live closest to the reactor. And I have no concern whatsoever.

So, I'm speaking on behalf of TRIDEC here. TRIDEC is a community economic development organization that serves both Benton and Franklin Counties.

We're designated by the State of Washington as the associate development organization for both counties, and we're also designated by the Department of Energy since 1994 as a community re-use organization for the Hanford site. TRIDEC has about 350 member firms and contracts with local cities, counties, port districts to perform economic development services for the community.

Energy Northwest has been a TRIDEC member since the early 1960s. I am here today to speak in favor of Energy Northwest's license renewal application for Columbia Generating Station. The Tri-Cities is the fastest growing region in the state, if not in the country. It continues to be identified as being one of the top ten growing areas in the United States. The Columbia Generating Station produces 1,157 megawatts of power. By 2020, Bonneville Power Administration said that this area will need an additional 150 megawatts of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 2 power. The license is a key to meeting the region's current and future electric needs, and it's equally important that Columbia Generating Station represents one of the lowest cost, baseload clean energy options available, zero greenhouse gas emissions.

From an environmental perspective, Energy Northwest has operated Columbia in a manner that protects the public's health and safety. I should know, I live within 10 miles of the plant. And is a responsible steward of the surrounding environment.

We support the NRC's preliminary recommendation that Columbia does not have any environmental impacts that would preclude the option of granting a license extension for an additional 20 years. Finally, Columbia is an important employer, as Larry Haler has said, with over 1,100 highly skilled employees.

At a time when we're seeing a downturn in employment at the Hanford site each of these jobs becomes critically important to us. Finally, I close, unfortunately you've heard a hypothesis of potential use of MOX fuel. Before anybody examines that closely, I think they better identify that it I S real or not real. And at this moment, I don't believe it's real. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you. Gary Troyer. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 62 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 MR. TROYER: Thank you. I I m Gary Troyer, T-R-O-Y-E-R.

I I m with the American Nuclear Society Eastern Washington section. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is chartered with overseeing the technical and operational safety of the U. S. nuclear power units. This Agency is responsible worldwide for its work, is respected worldwide for its work in ensuring safe designs and operation.

The Columbia Generating Station of Energy Northwest is an example of those efforts resulting in sustainable, reliable, dispatchable, and economi cal electric energy for regional users. Renewing the operating license is supported by the Eastern Washington section of the American Nuclear Society. This essential resource, Columbia Generating Station, ensures that region continues an abundance of baseload electrical energy. Lack of renewal would require replacement with higher cost energy sources, including a mix of carbon fuel supplies, which is currently unnecessary.

With reliability and capacity factors for scheduled operation approaching 100 percent, the Columbia Generating Station is our region's best supplement to hydropower.

Therefore, we fully endorse NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 2 22 23 1 1 24 25 63 renewal of the operating license for Columbia Generating Station. I'd also like to address the MaX issue. I don't know of very many light water reactors in the United States that don't have that in their core at this time. We realize that the process of burning uranium generates a little bit of plutonium.

The uranium is mixed, is oxide fuel i therefore, we have mixed oxide. It's safe, it works. It will be tested when we up the percentage rates. It's a way of disposing of plutonium that is in excess. Further, if we look at dispatchable and reliability, we know that currently the Bonneville Power Administration has about 3,100 megawatts of wind power on 1 ine . The day before yesterday that was zero, was unpredicted.

On the other hand, Columbia Generating Station works in concert with the hydropower.

They go down when the rivers are high i they come up when the rivers are low. Thank you. MS . FEHST: Thank you for your comment. We'll turn back to the phone, and just see if Jane Boyajian has possibly returned to the line. (No response.)

MS. FEHST: And if not, are there any callers on the line who have comments and have not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 been called on yet? MODERATOR TAMARA: We do have Bella Berlly. You line is open. MS. FEHST: Okay. Caller, when you make your comment, could you please identify yourself by name, spell your last name, first and last name for the reporter, and also if you're representing any organization, please identify that. Thanks. Go ahead. MS. BERLLY: Thank you. My name is Bella, spelled B-E-L-L-A (Telephonic interference).

MS. FEHST: Okay. Excuse me, caller. We're having a little trouble. You're kind of breaking up, and I think the reporter is having a little trouble getting the spelling.

Could you perhaps slow down a little bit just to see if that would help with the transcription, and maybe we'll remedy what the problem is? If you MS. BERLLY: Well, like many of the other callers have mentioned, I am also having technical problems.

I hear feedback and several voices echoing. My last name is spelled B-E-R-L-L-Y.

Did you hear that? MS. FEHST: Yes. Yes, we can. Thank you. Yes, we can. Thank you. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 65 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 MS . BERLLY : Thank you. I am a private ci tizen in (Telephonic interference)

Before rubber stamping the renewal! I strongly urge the NRC to hold public hearings (Telephonic interference)

Fukushima type event at the Hanford plant. An investigation by the Associated Press has found that federal regulators have been repeatedly weakening safety standards so that the nuclear power industry can keep the nation's aging reactors operating (Telephonic interference) when simply failing to enforce the safety standards.

Energy Northwest!

which runs the region's only commercial nuclear reactor located at Hanford! has been secretly planning to use the savings from plutonium fuel as was used in Fukushima in Reactor 3, which has a great risk of radiation leakage! as we all know. Energy Northwest (Telephonic interference) representing our local utilities were not required to submit documents admitting that offsite radiation doses would be higher from plutonium fuel and the likelihood of an accident will increase. (Telephonic interference) use contaminated buildings in Hanford's 300 area to fabricate plutonium fuel and create even more waste instead of cleaning up the contaminated area along the Columbia River. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 2 22 23 24 2 66 The Environmental Impact Statement on relicensing the plant to run until 2043 ignored that. I'd like to insist that the risks of using this fuel be disclosed in the EIS (Telephonic interference) needs to one, disclose and consider the impact (Telephonic interference) as of September 2011, including how it's even possible Energy Northwest will ensure that (Telephonic interference) of the next 50 years. Two, stop licensing until we learn what was damaged and why at the Fukushima reactor, and that NRC incorporates new and until the NRC incorporates new safety requirements.

Three, think about the unique location of the reactor at Hanford nuclear reservation.

The NRC should require this on the EIS portion and consider the impact if there is an explosion, or earthquake releasing radiation from Hanford lit preventing operation of the CGS reactor, or recovery from (Telephonic interference) . Hanford's high-level waste tanks and highly contaminated buildings (Telephonic interference) the Energy Northwest proposal to use the plutonium fuel (Telephonic interference) possible.

Four, much of Energy Northwest's spent fuel remains in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 5 10 15 20 25 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 67 a swimming pool above the reactor vessel, the same design that proved so dangerous at Fukushima.

We urge removal to hardened concrete casks. Number five, the low-level waste from this reactor goes to the commercial radioactive waste landfill the center of Hanford. The chemical and radioactive leak has already been proj ected to be high enough to cause 5 percent (Telephonic interference) . Thank you for taking my comments.

MS. FEHST: WeIll thank you for providing them. We appreciate it. Are there any other callers on the line who would like to make a comment? MODERATOR TAMARA: Next, Hafiz Heartsun.

Your line is open. MR. HEARTSUN:

Hello. MS. FEHST: All right. Yes, we can hear you caller, which is good. And I would just like to remind you to state your first and last name 1 and spell the last name please for the record. And if you're speaking on behalf of an organization, please identify that organization.

Thanks. Go ahead. MR. HEARTSUN:

Okay. My name is Haf Heartsun, that's H-E-A-R-T-S-U-N, and I'm speaking as an individual.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 2 68 MS. FEHST: Could you spell your first name I please? MR. HEARTSUN:

H-A-F-I-Z.

MS. FEHST: OkaYI thank you. Go ahead. MR. HEARTSUN:

Okay. I've been to a meeting at Hood Ri ver about Hanford l and I'm disappointed that it's not being held there l and we have to go through this conference call. And I got dropped from the linej I was not able to hear the presentation at the beginning.

I did hear one man comment at the end that he was involved in the construction of the plant and he feels confident that I it's built really well. I encourage that remark I but I also want to point out that this confidence does not override the laws of physics the inevitability of human error l I or extreme natural events. Similarly confident individuals built Fukushima I Chernobyll Three Mile Island l as well as the Challenger Space Shuttle l Apollo 13 1 the Tacoma Narrows Bridge l and the people who set up this conference call. There have been any number of failed engineering endeavors and they will I continue to happen. It is hopeful to strive to overcome failure but it's foolish to believe that it can be entirely eliminated.

It will continue to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 69 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 2 22 23 24 25 happen, and no one can predict how or when, or what exactly they will be. There will continue to be deaths and (Telephonic interference).

However, thi s inevitability is not an excuse for government or corporate denial of their responsibility.

Radioactivity poses a unique challenge that it creates power plants which explode and distribute toxic materials over vast areas and can create dead zones, such as around Chernobyl and Fukushima.

My comment is that it's obvious to me that the danger of failure in this case far outweighs the advantages of nuclear power. I also take issue with the notion that nuclear power is economical.

This view does not take into account decommissioning costs of all of these plants. The cleanup of catastrophic disasters which have happened and will happen in the future. Still unresolved waste disposal issue shows no sign of being resolved at all. I also take issue with the idea that nuclear power is green. It is carbon free, it's also calorie free. This superficial green-ness masks the blackness, high-level radioactive waste. Part of the designed fuel cycle and the possibility of accidental or catastrophic releases.

Nuclear power can be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 construed to be superior to coal, or wind, or solar by comparing certain statistics, but does not make nuclear clean. The advantage nuclear power does have is a powerful political lobby and a corporate call to the media and legislation (Telephonic interference) continued prof Other technologies are lagging behind nuclear in their ability to provide adequate electricity because research and development funds were slashed when Reagan took the solar panels off the White House in 1980, so we need to catch up and phase over to less toxic, dangerous forms of power generation and not put our eggs in a nuclear basket and arrogant believe that a Fukushima, Chernobyl cannot happen. I'm also concerned like the previous caller about the report that I heard of NRC's safety standards in order to so-call safely relicense nuclear power plants. This making nuclear power less expensive short-term, and an increased likelihood of accidents short term. Comment on the local Richland citizens which have commented in favor of Hanford's nuclear power generation.

I fully agree with what you're saying. It's wonderful that it's providing employment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 71 for the community, and that they have been very safe up to this point and very kind to the community with apparently minimal radioactive releases that have not created a notable spike, although I do know of individuals who do have thyroid cancer from living in the area. Regardless, the past experience of them being safe does not ensure safety in the future, and I urge you to consider that there is a toxic bomb, really. It is a controlled nuclear explosion happening that if gotten out of control will contaminate your home, like has happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl, and there is no way a human can guarantee that will not happen. So, you know, mistakes can happen, and it would be much better if there was a dam in the river there getting hydro electricity, much safer. When a hydro electric plant fails, the place is not contaminated for centuries.

Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay. Thank you, caller. I think I'll turn back to the floor to see if we have any audience members who have not submitted cards whose names I don't have yet. Is there anyone here in the room who has a comment they'd like to make this afternoon?

Okay. It looks like we're finished here (202) 2344433 COU NEAL R. GROSS RT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 72 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 1 1 2 22 23 24 2 in the main room. But let me turn back to the callers and just see if there's anyone on the line who hasn't had a chance to give their comment this afternoon.

Is there anyone who would still like to make a comment? MODERATOR TAMARA: Karen Axell, your line is open. MS. FEHST: Okay. Caller, if you could repeat your name again, and if you are with an organization, identify that organization.

And when you give your name, please spell the first and last name. The first time you came on, the call was kind of breaking up, so whatever you could do to make the call come through better. MS. AXELL: Sure, can you hear MS. FEHST: Yes, that's MS. AXELL: Very good. My name is Axell, that's A-X-E-L-L, and I live in Vancouver, Washington.

And I want to echo the previous comment on the weakening safety standards for the NRC and the proposed EIS should make an analysis of all the dangers and impact of proposals and implications available to the public for public comment, especially in regard to plutonium.

It should disclose all unresolved safety issues. You should stop the relicensing process until NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 73 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 25 the Fukushima accident is analyzed as to exactly what was damaged there and why. You must take into account the location of Hanford in regard to possible fire, earthquake, explosion hazard f dangers to the region f land and groundwater.

I urge the removal of the spent fuel to hardened concrete casks. You must address the disposal of the radioactive waste from the site. And I echo everyone who has said that you should be holding these hearings in other places in the region f especially where the public utilities are holding partial ownership of the reactor. Thank you very much. MS. FEHST: Okay. Thank you for your comment. Are there any other callers on the line? MODERATOR TAMARA: We do have Colm Brennan. Your I is open. MR. BRENNAN: Yes. My name is Colm Brennan f C-O-L-M B-R-E-N-N-A-N.

I live in Beaverton, Oregon. I I m with the Alliance for Democracy f Oregon Chapter. I believe that the power plant should not be relicensed like all the other callers have said until we resolve these safety problems that have been formally id entifie d by the NRC Staff. And f also, to address the issue of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 plutonium fuel, which if the Fukushima plant had been fully loaded with plutonium fuel, 40 percent greater radiation would have possibly leaked into the atmosphere.

And I believe also that when we're dealing with situations as dangerous as we have, that the public should be made aware of what is going on, and there should be more public meetings and information for people to comment and make their voices well known on this issue. And that I s all I have to say on behalf of the Alliance for Democracy.

Thank you very much. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment. Are there any other callers who would like to make a comment this afternoon?

MODERATOR TAMARA: We show no more comments or questions.

MS. FEHST: Okay. It appears that we have finished with the comment period. There will be another meeting this evening, open house from 6:00 to 7:00, and the meeting will officially begin at 7:00. On behalf of the NRC, weld like to thank you all for coming, for your attention, for your respectful attention to everybodyls remarks, and also for some very well thought out comments.

We appreciate that. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C, 20005-3701 75 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 20 21 This is not your only opportunity to provide your comments.

You can do so online and by u.s. mail. And, of course, all the contact 16 information is up on the slide up on the screen. And th we look forward to hearing from you by November

• November 16 th is the filing deadline for comments.

We will --the NRC will review all the comments that have come in today, and provide a response to all substantive comments in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the SEIS, and immediately following this meeting, NRC Staff will be available for a little while if any of you who are here would like to talk one-on-one with some of the people from the NRC who are here. And I want to thank you again for your comments, and for taking your time, and also for adhering to the time frame. And, most of all, for such a respectful audience with regard to your fellow audience members. Thank you. (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the record at 3:58 p.m.) NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 Official Transcript of NUCLEAR REGULATORY Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket 50-397 Richland, Washington September 27,2011 Work Order No.:

Pages 1-113 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., Court Reporters and 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Washington, D.C. (202) 2 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcome Geraldine Fehst .................... . Introductions Geraldine Fehst .................... . Results of NRC's Environmental Review of the Columbia Generating Station's License Renewal Application Daniel Doyle, NRC Project Manager... Clarifying Questions and Answers ......... . Publ Comments .......................... . Adj ourn .................................. . NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 3 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 PRO C E E DIN G S (7:00 p.m.) MS. FEHST: Okay. Can you hear me everyone?

I want to thank everyone who has returned for coming back and welcome all of you who are here for you for the first meeting of the day. My name is Gerri Fehst and I am a communications specialist with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC as we call it. And as you will hear it referenced throughout tonight's meeting. I am going to do my best to help make the meeting worthwhile for everyone.

And I hope that you will be able to help me out with that. There are two purposes for today's events. The first is two present the results of the NRC's environmental review for the Columbia Generating Station, the license renewal application, as published in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement or SEIS, which was published August 23rd of this year. And the second purpose of the meeting is to open it up to provide the opportunity for you as members of the public, both those of you who are here and those callers who we have on the line listening to us now and also with the goal of making some comments later in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 program. That is the focus of the second of the meeting, is to open it for public comment. So I would like to stress that this is an NRC public meeting and that NRC is not a part of the United States Department of Energy or DOE as is commonly called. The mission of the NRC is to regulate the nation's civilian use of byproduct source and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and securi ty , and to protect the environment.

Essentially that means that the NRC I S regulatory mission covers three main areas: commercial reactors for generating electric power and research and test reactors used for research and training i uses of nuclear materials in medical, industrial, and academic settings and facilities that produce nuclear fuel; transportation, storage and disposal of nuclear materials and waste, and decommissioning of nuclear facili from service. In contrast, the Department of Energy's main mission is to advance the national economic and energy security of the United States, to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission, and to ensure that the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 while I am mentioning it, if you could just head back to the table and fill out one or the other. And we ask that we fill out the cards because we want to be sure that we have an accurate and complete record of all those who attended today's meeting, both this afternoon and tonight. We want to have a good list but we also want to make sure that we have your name spelled correctly on the transcript.

We are creating a record of today's events and conversation and discussion.

It is the best way we know to collect all the information you present in your comments so that once we get back to the NRC we can gather up all the data collected and respond to all the substantive comments that are made. We are transcribing not only to make sure we fully capture your comments but we also want to --and because we are doing it we do want to have a clan transcript.

So there are a couple of things I am going to ask you to do when you come to the microphone to make your presentation.

The is when you come UPI if you could remember to state both your first and your last name and spell each for the reporter.

And also if you are representing an organization, it would be good if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 would then also identify the organization you are speaking on behalf of. And we ask, too, that you keep any side to a minimum so that we have only one person speaking at a time. A few, perhaps no, distractions and we can all focus on the speaker at the podium or the caller who is making a comment. It would also help, again, to prepare a clean transcript if anyone here who has any electronic device, if you could turn it off or at least put it on vibrate so we will keep interruptions to a minimum. We are going to do our best to answer any questions that might come up today but we ask you to keep in mind that there is a very small NRC Staff here today. And we may not have the right NRC expert who can best answer, best address whatever your particular concern or question So what we would ask, you know, is that if you do have such questions, that you perhaps would take it up with the staff member on the s or know that if we are not able to address your question at this time, we will record it, we will have it and take back to headquarters with us and someone will get back to you with a response.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 1 1 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 One of the things we are hoping that you picked up at the table in the front is the feedback form. We are asking those of you who are here attending to fill it out and give us your comments about what you think went well, what you think we can do better. We really do read them. We really do try to respond to those as well by making each meeting that we have, each subsequent meeting better than the one before. So we would really appreciate hearing your feedback.

So please don 1 t hesitate to fill out that form. A couple of housekeeping items before we get going. The restrooms are directly outs the door tha t you entered, down the hall to the right, and take the first and only left that you can take. Then the restrooms are on the right. So it is right, left, right. Emergency exits. There are three doors in this room that you could leave fromi the one that we all came in on, the two side doors here. This door is a door to the kitchen so it is not an door. As I mentioned, we will be taking comments not only from you as audience members but we also have callers on the line. And in fact we have a number of callers. I think we heard from about 17 callers that we have a record of. We have their names already. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 And at the moment, we have more requests for comments from callers than we do from people in the audience.

So we will have to keep that in mind. We will try to mix it up so it isn't all one or the other but just so you know that the callers at the moment are outnumbering the audience members for interest in making a comment. When we do start to take the callers in the public comment period in the second part of the meeting, once we do begin I will ask if there are any callers that we haven't heard from and likewise, any audience members that we haven't heard from. So if the course of the meeting you have an interest in, develop an interest in making a comment and hadn't planned on doing so, it won't be too late. You know I you can always go fill out a card and get to me. Or at the very end if I ask if anyone has any further comments and you haven't filled out a card and you want to speak to make a comment, please let me know and we will make time for that. One of the things that I want the callers to be aware of is that all callers are now in the listening mode controlled by the moderator who is handling that. And the lines stay in that mode until we go to the publ NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 comment period. And then they will be opened and the callers will be able to communicate over the line in that way. But don't worry if you are not --You will be able to hear that is going on but you won't be able to and be heard with us until the public comment period begins. And a final thing for callers is if you want a copy of the final SEIS to be mailed to you t please send an email to Daniel Doyle at the NRC to make sure that he has your proper mailing address so you will be sure to get that when it comes out. And his email address is .doyle@nrc.gov. His address is also listed in the Federal sternotice and it is on the web. So a couple different places you can check for it to make sure you get your proper mailing address to him. Okay. I wanted to take a moment to introduce some of the NRC Staff in attendance today. And I will ask them to stand and identify themselves to you. The rst is David Wrona. He is the Branch Chief for the Division of License Renewal at the NRC. Daniel Doyle. Dan is the Environmental Project Manager for Columbia Division of License Renewal NRC. Sitting at the table at the back where you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202} 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11 filled out the card is Michael Wentzel, Environmental Project , Division of License Renewal, NRC. Lara Uselding, standing at the back, she is our Pub I Af Officer from NRC Region IV in Texas. And Jeremy Groom. Jeremy is the Senior Resident at Columbia.

And while I am doing introductions, I wanted to callout another welcome to a few representatives we have here. Again, Barbara Lisk from the U.S. Congressman Hastings's office. If you could stand or let us know who you are. Good. And Daniel Reeploeg, U. S. Senator Cantwell's Office. Both back. You had so much fun afternoon you had to come back this evening. Okay. With that, all of.this, I will hand things over to Dan Doyle and he will make the presentation on the results of the Environmental Review and we will talk a 1 bit about the process for submitting comments.

And he will ask for questions.

Your questions, at the end of his presentation he will ask you if you have any questions on his presentation.

And I will have a mic in the back and I'll be walking around with And I will try to take your questions the order that I see your hands. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 2 3 4 5 6 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 And we ask that you confine the questions on the presentation, what Dan has actually said in his presentation.

Save your comments, your actual comments on the draft SEIS to the second part of the meeting, which will immediately follow the clarifying questions on Dan's presentation.

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

On August 23rd, the NRC published its draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement or draft SEIS related to the Columbia Generating Station license renewal application.

We have hard in the back of the room there. And I would like to encourage you to take a copy if you want one or if you want to take mUltiple copies, that's okay, too. We have more underneath the table than what you can see there. So please do not hesitate to take multiple hard copies. We also have copies on CD. And the CD includes the file for this document right when you open it up and then also there is a separate folder with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 13 background documents, including the application and other information documents from the NRC on that CD. The draft SEIS documents the NRC's preliminary review of the Environmental Impacts associated wi th renewing the Columbia Generating Station operating license for an additional 20 years. And today I am going to present to you those results. I hope that the information provided will help you understand what we have done so far and the role you can play in helping us make sure that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is accurate and complete.

Here is the agenda for today's meeting. I will discuss the NRC I S regulatory role, the preliminary findings of our environmental review, including the power generation alternatives that were considered and I will present the current schedule for the remainder of the environmental review and how you can submit comments after this meeting. After that, I will take some time to briefly discuss a topic that is not related to the environmental review but is of interest to those in attendance, the NRC's response to Fukushima.

At the end of the presentation, there will be time for questions and answers on the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 review process and most importantly, time for you to present your comments on the draft SEIS. The NRC was established to regulate the civilian uses of nuclear materials, including facilities that produce electric power. The NRC conducts license renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to operate them beyond their tial license period. NRC license renewal reviews address issues related to managing the effects of aging and environmental issues related to an additional 20 years of operation.

In all aspects of the NRC IS regulat , the agency I s mission is to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety to promote the common defense and security and to protect the environment.

We are here today to discuss the potential site specific impacts of license renewal at Columbia Generating Station. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement or GElS examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a result of renewing licenses of individual nuclear power plants under 10 C.F.R. Part 54. The GElS, to the extent possible, establishes the bounds and significance of these potential impacts. The analyses in the GElS encompass all operating light water power reactors.

For each type of environmental impact, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 the GElS attempts to establ generic findings covering as many plants as possible.

For some environmental issues, the GElS found that a generic evaluation was not sufficient and that a -specific analysis was required.

The site-specific findings for Columbia Generating Station are contained in the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

And again, that was published August 23rd of this year. This document contains analyses of all applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review of issues covered in the GElS to determine whether the conclusions in the GElS are valid for Columbia Generating Station. In this process, the NRC! s Staff also reviews the environmental impacts of potential power generation alternatives to license renewals, to determine whether the impacts expected from license renewal are unreasonable.

For each environmental issue identified, an impact level is assigned.

The NRC I S standard of significance for impacts was established using the White House Council on Environmental Quality terminology for significance.

The NRC established three levels of significance for potential impacts, small, moderate, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 large. For a small impact, the effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

For a moderate impact, the effects are sufficient to noticeably later but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

And for a large impact, the effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.

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

The Staff's preliminary conclusion is that the site-specific impacts related to license renewal for each of these issues is small. When reviewing the potential impacts of license renewal on the environment, the NRC also looks at the effects on the environment from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future human NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 17 actions. These effects referred to as cumulative 2 impacts not only include the operation of Columbia 3 Generating Station but also impacts from activities 4 unrelated to the plant, such as the radioactive waste 5 disposal and tank waste stabilization and closure at 6 Hanford, the proposed reduction of the Hanford site 7 footprint, cleanup of radioactive waste burial grounds 8 618-10 and 618-11, proposed construction of new energy 9 projects and climate change. 10 Past actions are those related to the 1 resources before the receipt of the license renewal 12 application.

Present actions are those related to the 13 resources at the time of current operation of the plant 14 and future actions are those that are reasonably 15 foreseeable through the end of plant operations, 16 including the period of extended operation.

Therefore, 17 the analysis considers potential impacts through the end 18 of the current license term, as well as the 20-year 19 renewal term. 20 For water resources, the NRC preliminarily 2 concluded that there are small to large cumulative 22 impacts due to DOE activities at Hanford, depending on 23 the location.

For aquatic resources, impacts are large 24 due to past alterations of aquatic habitat and fish NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 passage along the Columbia River. For cultural resources, ongoing construction restoration and waste management activities on the Hanford site have the potent to signi cantly af cultural resources, particularly within the viewshed of Gable and Rattlesnake Mountains.

Therefore, the cumulative impacts would be moderate.

In the other areas considered, the Staff preliminarily concluded that cumulative impacts are small. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates that each environmental impact statement consider alternatives to any proposed major federal action. A major step in determining whether license renewal is reasonable or not is comparing the likely impacts of continued operation of the nuclear power plant with the likely impacts of alternative means of power generation.

Alternatives must provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant operation license to meet future system generating needs. In the draft SEIS the NRC initially considered 18 different alternatives.

After this initial consideration, the Staff then chose the three most likely and analyzed these depth. Finally, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 NRC considered what would happen if no action is taken and Columbia Generating Station shuts down at the end of its current license without a specific replacement alternative.

This alternative would not provide power generation capacity, nor would it meet the needs currently met by Columbia Generating Station. The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that the impacts from energy alternatives would vary widely based on the characterist of the alternatives.

In most cases, construction of new facilities would create significant impacts. All alternatives capable of meeting the needs currently served by Columbia Generating Station entail impacts greater than or equal to the proposed action of license renewal. Based on a review of the potential environmental impacts from license renewals and alternatives to license renewal, the NRC's Staff's preliminary recommendation in the draft SEIS is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Columbia Generating Station are not great enough to deny the option license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers.

I would like to emphasize that the environmental review is not yet complete.

Your comments NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 today and all written comments received by the end of the comment period on November 16th, will be considered by the NRC as we develop the final SEIS, which we currently plan to issue February 2012. Those comments that are within the scope of the environmental review and provide new and icant information can help to change the Staff1s findings.

The final SEIS will contain the Staff1s final recommendation on the acceptability of 1 renewal based on the work we have already performed and the comments we during the comment period. I am the primary contact for the environmental review. The contact for the review is Arthur Cunanan. Hard copies of the draft SEIS are available at the table in the back of the room, as are copies on CD. In addition, the Richland Publ Library and Kennewick Branch Library have agreed to make hard copies available for review. You can also find electronic of the draft SEIS, along with other information about the Columbia Generating Station license renewal review online on the webs on this slide as well as in the handout. The NRC will address written comments in the same way we address spoken comments received today and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 21 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 recorded in the transcript.

You can submit written comments either via conventional mail, fax, or online. To submit written comments online, vis the website regulations.gov and search for keyword or ID NRC-2010-0029.

If you have written comments this evening, you may give them to any NRC Staff member. Again, to ensure consideration, comments must be received by Wednesday, November 16, 2011. Before we open up the meeting for questions and comments, I would like to take some time to briefly discuss a topic that is of many of you, the NRC's response to Fukushima.

While this issue not to the Columbia Generating Station Environmental and is therefore not specifically addressed the draft SEIS, it is being actively addressed through other relevant agency processes.

Since the accident at Fukushima, the NRC has taken multiple steps to ensure the safe ion of nuclear power plants both now and in the future. As part of its initial response to the , the NRC issued temporary instructions to our directing specific instructions directing specif of nuclear power plants in order to assess disaster readiness and compliance with current regulations.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 The next s in the NRC's response was the report of the NRC's Near-Term Task Force. The purpose of the Near-Term Task Force was to develop near-term recommendations and a framework for us to move forward with in the longer term. The Near-Term Task Force issues its on July 12th and discussed the results of its review in a public meeting on July 28th. This is a copy of the Task Force recommendations.

There are copies in the back of the room and it is also available on the website, nrc.gov. There is a link Japan follow-up actions on the main page and the direct link is also in the handout which I provided.

As a t of its review, the Near-Term Task Force presented 12 overarching recommendations for improvement.

These recommendations are appl to operating reactors regardless of license renewal status. Based on the results of the Near-Term Task Force, the Commission has directed the NRC Staff to evaluate and outl which of the recommendations should be implemented.

The Staff submitted a paper to the Commission on September 9th providing the Staff! s recommendations on which Task Force recommendations can, in the Staff's judgment, should be initiated or in whole without de NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www,nealrgross.com 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 2 22 23 24 On October 3 1 2011 1 the staff will submit another Commission paper on the ization of 11 of the 12 Task Force recommendations.

Recommendation one of the Task Force l the recommendation to reevaluate the NRC's regulatory framework 1 will be evaluated over the next 18 months. To date l the NRC has not identi any issues as part of these acti vi ties that call into quest the safety of any nuclear facility.

AdditionallYI this review process is going on independent of license renewal. Any changes that are identified as necessary will be implemented for all 1 regardless of license renewal status.1 For information on the NRC's post-Fukushima activities, including the result of the Near-Term Task Force can be found on the NRC's website by clicking on Japan Nuclear Accident NRC Actions on the home page or directly through the website on this slide. That concludes my prepared remarks. Before moving into receiving your comments 1 we would like to give you an opportunity to ask questions about the presentation.

If you have a question, please raise your hand and please wait the facilitator, Gerril to bring the microphone to you so we can ensure to get your question NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D,C. 20005-3701 24 I 2 3 4 S 6 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 on the transcript.

I will check in the room here and then will also open it up to the phone to see if there are any ions. Are there any clarifying questions here in the room? MR. POLLET: Gerry Pollet with Heart of America Northwest.

I have three questions.

The first is in regard to your comments about Fukushima and the words you used were consideration of response to Fukushima is "not related." Aren't we here to give comments and for you to respond to concerns about how consideration of safety issues raised by Fukushima may be related to safety, including site-specific issues for the Columbia Generating Station that have never been considered in any other EIS? MR. DOYLE: The purpose of this meeting is to collect comments related to the environmental review. So certainly the comments that would be wi thin the scope of this review would be comments related to environmental issues associated with license renewal. Another MR. POLLET: Human health is the environment, too, under NEPA and so I am concerned that whether you are in the room or on the phone, people are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 1 2 22 23 24 going to have the impression we can't talk about this. But if the concern of someone is for instance Fukushima I I showed that we have not considered full range of accidents involving spent fuel pools s ing above reactor vessels, which the condition here at this reactor I then that is a potential serious ronmental impact to be addressed.

Wouldn't that f within the scope of what people should be commenting on? MR. DOYLE: We certainly understand, and that is part of the reason why we included the slide in here, that people are very concerned about that. We are very concerned about it and the NRC is follow-up actions on it. It is being handled as a generic issue but I do want to be clear to acknowledge that we are here to accept the comments that people have. We are here to accept comments that members of the public may have. We will consider those comments and if it is determined that they were wi thin the scope and related to the review, then we will respond to those comments.

So certainly we can comments and concerns that people may have and how they believe that it relates to the environmental review. So I don't want to make it sound like you can't talk about Fukushima but you can certainly provide comments on issues that you believe should be considered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 2 2 22 23 24 as of this review. That is why we are here. MR. POLLET: I really appreciate your clarifying that for people who are listening.

I suppose we should check if people on the phone can actually hear us, during the afternoon session they couldn't hear Can we double check? MR. DOYLE: There was an issue with the previous meeting and we did determine what the cause of that was. The line got disconnected.

And we also have a moderator on the line that hopefully would be able to get some feedback if the signal was not coming through. So not just a one-way thing. We did check it out prior to starting the meeting. MR. POLLET: I want to thank you for making that available and thanks for the thumbs up back there. The second question I have regard to you refer to the EIS. Is this 1996 EIS? MR. DOYLE: Yes. MR. POLLET: Okay. And has it been updated to include such information as the findings about the proposed disposal of greater than Class C, which is extremely radioactive waste from decommissioning reactors, in the Energy Department's EIS? Is the NRC referring to linking to and updating this process, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 1 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 based on the environmental impact statement which has dramatically different impact, especial for the Hanford site from disposal of greater than Class C waste never before discussed?

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

MR. DOYLE: So the question of updating the EIS that the NRC is going through the final steps, you could say, of updating the generic EIS. So that is a process and that has not been incorporated in this review. So is the c EIS being updated? The answer is yes, the Staff doing that. And I forget the latest schedule for doing that but will come out but that would affect other I renewals reviews, not this one. So it is being updated. Just to a little bit of the process, though, for the environmental issues in the generic EIS, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 2 22 23 24 they are determined to be Category 1 or Category 2 issues. Category 1 refers to the generic issues; the ones that the NRC believes apply to some or all nuclear power plants with similar characteristics.

So what we have done in the last two years or since this application came in, was we were focusing on the site-specific issues / the Category 2 ones / but we also look at the Category 1 issues to see they are still applicable here. So that is how that would be covered there. For new information that will come up/ the NRC staff looks at this generic determination for 1996 and says does this still make sense? Does this still apply based on the information that we are aware of for this review? So procedurally I that is how the Staff would incorporate new information such as that. Now specifically with the greater than Class C/ I can't answer that question right now. Ilmnot the best person to talk about that but I could certainly take that as a comment and get back to you. 11m not sure if that is referenced in our document or how that would be addressed.

I really can I t talk about that right now. MR. POLLET: I appreciate your get ting back to me. Thanks. MR. DOYLE: Okay I are there any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 questions from people here in the room, before we open it up for questions from callers? MR. COX: Yes, my name is John Cox. I am a U.S. citizen and a resident of the city of Richland.

I have actually three questions.

The first question is who did the GElS and SEIS work? MR. DOYLE: Both documents have a list of preparers in there that has a 1 of all the NRC Staff and contractors that worked on it. So the Generic Environmental Impact Statement I am not as familiar with who worked on that but that is included in the document.

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

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

MR. COX: Thank you. My next question:

who paid for the work? MR. DOYLE: Who paid for this work? MR. COX: I say that with my tongue in cheek. MR. DOYLE: Okay, I guess you could the taxpayers.

And I think what you are probably getting at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D,C. 20005*3701 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 30 is the fact that the NRC's work is, I guess, a fee-reimbursable.

That is the term. So I mean when a licensee, when an NRC licensee or utility comes in with an action like this, that the work that done associated with that is documented and the utility has to pay into a fund basically, but the NRC's funding comes from the taxpayers and from Congress.

Is that what you were getting at? MR. COX: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. My third question historically what has been NRC's record on renewable license applications in this arena? MR. DOYLE: Right. This is the 47th supplement.

So there have been 47 previous environmental reviews. For each of the previous license renewal reviews, the application, the renewals have been granted. So you are saying the record of whether they were approved or rejected?

All the ones that have come in so have been approved.

MR. COX: That was 47, you said? So 100 percent. MR. DOYLE: That's true. Yes. MR. COX: All right. Thank you. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 MR. DOYLE: I can't think of a specific thing that might be getting at what you are trying to bring up, not something that I can think of. So I mean have the impacts been what the NRC has thought they would be? As far as I am aware, I think the estimates have been fairly accurate.

MS. LARSEN: Hi, my name is Pam Larsen and I am resident of this region. I have two questions.

In contrast to the renewal of a nuclear power plant permit, do you look at the environmental consequences of coal-fired powered generation in the region? MR. DOYLE: As part of our review of potential alternatives, we did consider coal. That wasn't looked at as an in-depth alternative and the reasons for that decision are explained in Chapter 8. So we did, at least initially, consider that the plant could be replaced, could be shut down and replaced by a coal plant. But for the reasons described in Chapter 8, we didn't make that an in-depth analysis.

The ones that were in-depth were a natural gas plant, a new nuclear power plant and a combination alternative, which included a smaller natural gas plant plus hydropower, plus wind power and some energy conservation measures.

So those were the three that were analyzed depth. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Does that answer your question?

MS. LARSEN: My second point as a resident of this following Fukushima, I asked a lot of questions about our backup systems for providing cooling water to nuclear lity. And I found thos e responses to be very robust. And I would assume that that would be part of your analysis as well? MR. DOYLE: No. As part of the environmental review, we are not looking at backup systems for cooling water, that sort of thing. We are mainly focusing on the impact to fish, the aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, the air, the water t human health t so those sorts of So as part of this environmental review t we did not get redundant engineering systems to provide safety. There is a separate safety review that is looking at how the plant is going to manage the effects of aging and a period of extended operation and then through current processes in place for ongoing operations.

There are reviews for issues that the NRC believes need to get looked at and there are inspections.

So the answer nOt we didn't look at that. MS. LARSEN: Okay. MS. FEHST: Any other questions with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www,nealrgross,com 34 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 spec regard to Dan I s presentation?

Anything to clarify? Okay. MR. MCDONALD:

My name is Scott McDonald.

On your impact analysis/

on your levels/ at what point do you require mitigation and how is that done? Do you work that out with the licensee?

I not all of them are small but MR. DOYLE: Right. The NRC would consider if mitigation was required and, in this case/ that they determined for these impacts that it would not be necessary.

But just generally speaking/

I don't think I could really explain fully the process for doing that. But basically the NRC felt that it was appropriate, that we would take actions to ensure that the applicant took those measures.

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

Okay. MR. LARSON: Your last Well, Doug Larson, resident of Richland.

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

Did you guys quantify the potential discharges from those other sources and do some type of comparison against the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Columbia Station? MR. DOYLE: For the in-depth alternatives, yes. There is a discussion of for all of the same issues that we investigate in-depth for this site-specific review, we look at those issues also or those impact areas for those al ternati ve sources of producing power and do a comparison.

That is what we are doing is we are looking at the proposed action so we could renew this license. What would those environmental impacts be? And then what are some reasonable alternatives to this action? What would those impacts be? So what impact would a coal-fired power plant have on air emissions, that kind of thing? But as I said, that wasn't an in-depth review for this particular case. We didn't get into those details for a coal plant for this review. But yes, we did look at the impact, the environmental impacts of those alternatives and compared it to license renewal. MR. LARSON: Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay. Any other questions for Dan on his presentation? (Pause.) MS. FEHST: Okay. All right, it looks like we are ready to go into the MR. DOYLE: Well, we want to check with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .* NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 callers on the phone to see if they MS. FEHST: Callers. Thank you. Okay. MR. DOYLE: have any clarifying questions and then we can try to respond to those. MS. FEHST: You're right. Denise, are there any questioners on the line? DENISE: If anyone would like to ask a phone question, please press star one on your touch tone phone. Once again, star one if you would like to ask a question.

This will take just one moment, please. I do have a question from a Thomas Buchanan.

MS. FEHST: Okay, caller, go ahead. DENISE: Thomas Buchanan, your line is open. DR. BUCHANAN:

Hello. Do you copy me? MS. FEHST: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. Thank you for calling. DR. BUCHANAN:

I am the Vice President of the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility here in Seattle. I am interested in the actual process of the NRC's examination of Fukushima and how you folks might have taken some of these things into account. It doesn't seem with anything has been revealed from the Fukushima accident so far. For example, the actual condition of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 the spent fuel pools, where they are stored, what kind of control they have over them, etcetera, have been appl by the NRC to conditions in this country. Do you think that is significant?

And why didn't you include some of the extrapolations that have gone on with the task force? MR. DOYLE: Okay, I understand your question saying that do you consider Fukushima, the fact that that happened significant and how are you addressing that here. You know, why is that not part of this review? And you know, ally we can take this as a comment. There were many pet ions that have been led. The NRC has stated its position in response to those positions and the NRC's position is that this is being handled through current regulatory processes that the results, the actions that the NRC decides to take would apply to all licensees, regardless of license renewal status and that this does not require immediate steps from the licensees and is not part of the license renewal review. So again, I just want to state that that is what the NRC's position is. We are here to hear your opinions on this topic and other topics. The comments that would specifically be within the scope of this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 environmental review are the comments on environmental issues or things that are included in the draft SEIS. Fukushima is not discussed in the draft SEIS or other topics that you believe should be discussed in the draft SEIS and why. Why are those environmental issues that are related specif to the period of extended operations of this plant? That is what we are looking for and we will respond to those comments.

So I hope that answered your question but it is not discussed in the draft SEIS and the NRC's position is that this is not something that needs to be addressed within the 1 renewal process but there is a lot of activity going on at the NRC to determine what act , if any, we should take for all licensees.

MS. FEHST: Yes, and just a reminder, callers, if you have any additional clarifying questions, that the questions at this time go directly to any fications you might want, you might feel you need on what Dan addressed.

And immediately following this question period, we will move right into the public comment period. And at that time, comments that you as audience members or as callers feel should be part of the assessment that is made before the final SEIS drafted, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 39 then that would be the time to make your comments.

But right now is just clarifying questions on Dan's presentation for the draft SElS. So are there any other DR. BUCHANAN:

The reason why This is Tom Buchanan again. Just to clarify my comments, my comments were around the process of the licensing review. And to the extent that Fukushima is a game changer and it does require, for example, a longer run view of earthquake activity in a activity, should I think, the backup systems, that was asked a little earlier, should be a part of the review, etcetera.

I think these are process issues that at least were addressed initially by the NRC I S Task Force that went to Fukushima that people should recognize this within the NRC and begin to integrate these into any license application, including the one that we have right now. This shouldn't be just put aside until some report is produced out of Fukushima next year. NRC has already seen the importance and the seriousness of what has happened in Japan and probably should be much more alert about integrating it into the reviews and stopping those reviews if they haven't been integrated.

That is my comment. Thanks. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 40 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 MS. FEHST: Okay. That comment is well stated and duly noted and will. certainly be part of the review of all substantive comments that we are taking back after the meetings earlier today and tonight. So thank you for your comment. Are there any other callers who have questions with regard --Does any caller need to clarify their own mind anything that they heard Dan say his presentation?

DENISE: Next up is Nancy Morris. Your I is open. MS. MORRIS: Yes, well this is Nancy Morris calling from Seattle, Washington.

I have a question in that Dan said one time that the NRC sees nothing that calls into question the preceding analysis that they don't see a risk to the environment or public health from the safety standards that are currently in effect. That my first question for clarification.

Is that where he was going with that comment? That is my one question.

I have another. MR. DOYLE: I'm not sure if I understand exactly your comment or if maybe Dave you remember which part, but it sounds like you are saying that the NRC's conclusion is that based on our review of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 would continue to be stored where it has been stored so far. So there the fuel pool on the site. have an independent fuel storage installation and I believe they ship some other radioactive waste to offsite areas. So would continue to go where it is going until another location is established.

MS. MORRIS: Related to your comments that they are planning to use plutonium fuel that is similar to Fukushimals reactor at Columbia Generating Station? MR. DOYLE: So you are asking if they are going to do that. The information that I have, that I had previous to walking into this meeting is discussed in the draft SEIS on page 2 2. So in MS. MORRIS: I donlt have a copy of that draft SEIS. MR. DOYLE: Okay. Well we can get you a copy if you want but I am just letting you know that there is a brief discussion in the draft SEIS. So the potential use of mixed fuel from blending plutonium and the potential use of that in Columbia Generating Station, that topic is discussed in the draft SEIS. And the extent of that discussion is that the NRC was made aware that there were some documents about a feasibility study that carne out. were several news articles NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 43 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 that were about it. And that there is no formal application to the NRC to use mixed fuel right now. So there not a proposed action or anything to review at this time from the applicant, other than the side notification that we have been aware that there were some documents about an initial study for using that. So we are saying that we are aware of those articles and the fact that people are talking about And wanted to include the information that we had there. We don't have anything from the applicant and we also state in the document that if the applicant did want to use it that there would be a license amendment required and there would be a separate environmental review for that. So this environmental review is not considering the potential use of mixed oxide as a reasonably foreseeable future action. MS. MORRIS: Okay. I guess I have some comments I can make towards the end of the comment session. Thank you. DENISE: Next up is Kevin Carlson. MR. CARLSON: My questions have been asked already. Thank you. DENISE: Next up is Dvija Bertish. Your line is open. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 44 MR. BERTISH: Thank you. Dvij a Michael Bertish from the Rosemary Neighborhood Association.

I have a few questions here. Does the general EIS analyze the potent for catastrophic failures at the power plant due to earthquakes or other natural causes? MR. DOYLE: The draft of this document does include in Chapter 5 a discussion of two types of accidents.

And we explain the definitions and types of those. In Chapter 5 we talk about design basis acc and severe accidents so that that would be the part of the document to review if you are interested in the NRC 's discussion of severe accidents.

So the short answer is yes and that is in Chapter 5. Also, Appendix F has a led discussion of severe accident mi tigation alternatives and these are related to the severe accident review. These are proposed actions that the applicant could take to reduce the offs impacts of severe accidents.

So that is Chapter 5 and Appendix F. So yes, those are included.

MR. BERTISH: During the comparison for the preferred alternatives to do their license renewal, how does the NRC equate renewal of the 1 to be equal to in terms of the environmental impact any al ternati ve when another alternative has the ability to have a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 catastrophic explosion?

MR. DOYLE: The alternat are not compared to wi th the proposed action in terms of severe accident consequences.

So, the NRC is looking at air, water, threat to endangered species. So, those are the environmental impacts that are --those are the issues that are compared in this review. So basically your comment may be that you feel that those should be compared but to address the issue, I think, just to point out that those severe accidents are not compared.

MR. BERTISH: Does the renewal for this facility allow for a streamlined or track ability for the plant to make appl mixed oxide fuel use? MR. DOYLE: It sounded you were saying --asking if the license renewal application would somehow allow them to have a faster review. The fact that they have applied for a license renewal, would that somehow make the mixed oxide, the potential use of mixed oxide fuel environmental review faster? Is that what you are asking? MR. BERTISH: Yes. MR. DOYLE: The answer is no. This 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 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 2 22 23 24 47 be able to operate for another 20 years. So you know if a component had a shorter lifespan and couldn't be managed then it would need to be aced. Those issues t would be addressed in this review. But what is the design life of the plant? I can't answer that but I can say that the original license term was 40 years. MR. BERTISH: Is the facility at the Columbia Generating Station the same model type and the same genre as the Fukushima plant and built by the same designers?

MR. DOYLE: The Columbia Generating is a boiling water reactor with a Mark II containment.

The Fukushima plant was also a boiling water reactor. They were both designed by GE. The Fukushima plant was a Mark I containment.

So that is different.

And I am not able to elaborate on the differences between Mark I and Mark II. So the containment is different but there are similarities.

MR. BERTISH: One f question t please, in nature. You mentioned that the review based on the response to the Fukushima disaster caused the NRC to review safety protocols for all existing U.S. power NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 plants. And you came to the conclusion that the review did not call for any closure of any existing plants in operation.

And my question regarding that is did that account for current failures of any individual existing power plants, such as known leaks or explos i ve problems or critical failures, safety failures that may have happened let's say over the past couple of years? Or was there anything noting current placement on very active fault lines? MR. DOYLE: I don't think I am the best person to answer that question.

I think we can maybe take your information and get back to you on the details on what was specifically looked at as part of the NRC's inspection following Fukushima.

Based on my understanding, it was a review of their ability to respond to disaster situations and that it did not extend to reviewing the previous leaks or the other things that you had mentioned at the plant. There are current regulatory processes in place for that and that it was not the focus of the inspections.

If you want more detail on how the inspections were conducted or what they looked at and how they decided what to look at, I would have to get back with you on that because I really can't explain those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE .* (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005-3701 49 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 inspections in that level of detail. MR. BERTISH: Were there act failures such as releases of radioactive waste to rivers and streams or some sort of plume that exists or failed pipes beneath an existing facility that are suspected of leaking, doesn't that advance those facilities up the chain in terms of risk factor and call into question the very safety of such an existing facility?

MR. DOYLE: So I think the bes t way to handle this, you are saying that plants that have had previous problems are more likely to be vulnerable to earthquakes or releases and that they should have a higher priority or a more stringent review. Again I am not aware of the details of how these inspections were des-,-,-<u<;;;;u.

or what they looked at but that these issues that are being brought up are very good issues. These are things that are being looked at by the NRC right now and how we need to re look at the current operating fleet and perhaps repriori ze our acti vi t to make sure that we are able to ensure that the public, you know, protect the publ and the environment given the fact that this event occurred, that this event at Fukushima occurred.

That is exactly what the NRC is looking at. But whether or not those inspections were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. NW. (202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 1 2 22 23 24 more detailed or less detailed based on the previous history of the plant, I don't think so. But if you want more information on that I will have to get back to you.I MS. FEHST: Caller, this is the moderator.

And I am wondering if you could give us your and last name and spell each so we can be sure to back to you. And if you could leave your contact information with Denise l the operator I and we would ask Denise to make sure that we get that. As Dan is sayingl it sounds like you have some concerns that might be best addressed by members of the task force. We have already had one meeting. I believe it was a public meeting regarding the results of the Near-Term Task Force Report. No doubtl there will be others. But it sounds to me like And again as I mentioned in the beginning in opening remarks I we do want to make sure that everybody gets a chance to make their comments both from the phone and from the audience.

And we ask that the comments be directly related to the Columbia Generating Station. And you have had some wonderful questions that were directly related to the Columbia Station but it sounds like we are kind of moving away from that in very important areas but they might be best addressed by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 51 people who have been working on the Fukushima report and we would be happy to get back to you. MR. BERTISH: I am happy to do that. I disagree with your assessment because these questions are speci to Columbia River Generating Station. But I am happy to leave my name and number and go from there. MS. FEHST: All right. Thank you. And just for the record, if we could get the correct spelling for the reporter.

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

MS. FEHST: Thank you. DENISE: The next question from the phone lines comes from Jacqueline Sorgan. Your line open. MS. SORGAN: Thank you. I have a ion regarding public health. With the close proximity to the Native American tribes, has any consideration been given to their closeness to the earth and resources and their health and safety regarding the Columbia Generating Station? MR. DOYLE: Yes. The unique lifestyle of the Native American tribes is discussed the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 52 environmental justice area in Chapter 4, as well as I believe it is a subsection within Environmental Justice where we talk about subsistence consumption and that would not just be limited to Native Americans but other people that may choose to live off crops that are grown in this area. So, the answer is yes, that is discussed and that is in Chapter 4 under Environmental Justice. MS. SORGAN: Thank you, s DENISE: Okay, are you ready for the next question?

MS. FEHST: Yes. DENISE: From a Holly Green. Your line is open. MS. GREEN: Hi. Holly Green. I 1 in the Issaquah, Washington area. And I was listening to your presentation and I do have a question.

This part that you spoke about in response to Fukushima and you said that there would be 12 recommendations

--that there were 12 recommendations for improvement regarding safety. And I guess I just wanted, you know, I know the woman was saying that it was tangent but to me it not. So I just want to find out there any guarantee that any or all of those recommendations for improvement would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 53 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 adopted? I mean how can I know that they will, any of them be adopted? MR. DOYLE: There is not a guarantee that these recommendations will be adopted. So that the short answer. This task force was created with a small number of NRC staff and their mission was to look at the available information coming out of Fukushima with a 90 day period and generate what they saw as recommendations that the NRC should take. So they did that. They issued r task force and now the NRC staff is looking at which of those can be implemented and the Commission, ultimately the Nuclear Regulatory, the actual Commission, the five Commissioners will determine at a policy level which of these recommendations should move ahead and should be implemented.

So the recommendations are discussed the Task Force report. There are public meetings associated wi th that. And that is where the best information comes from. So are they guaranteed that these would be implemented?

No. These were the result of the ial review and the NRC is going to move through a process of determining which, if any, should be reviewed and how they should be prioritized and what actions need to be taken to ensure that the public and the environment are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 protected.

MS. GREEN: Okay, thank you. DENISE: The next question comes from a Carolyn Mann. Your line is open. MS. MANN: Thank you. Hi I my name is Carolyn Mann and I am a resident of Oregon, a private citizen. And I am calling with a couple questions.

The first is it was mentioned that the NRC was in the process of updating its Generic EIS and you said that this would affect other license renewals that were up for renewal. I was just wondering why that is. MR. DOYLE: This application was submitted in January 2010 and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement at that time was the one that has been approved, which is the previous one. The new I the revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement has not been approved.

So it not the NRC J s policy, you could say. It is not the official version. document is subj ect to change. So that is why is not applying to this cense renewal application.

But as I explained earlier, the NRC staff does have a process of reviewing the generic conclusions that are in the Generic EIS. And to incorporate other information that we are aware of and to decide that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 are free to decide whether or not the conclusions in the previous document are still applicable here. So that is how an issue that is say included in the new I in the revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement but not in the previous one, that is how that would be incorporated into this review. But that was not the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement at the time that this review is occurring.

MS. MANN: Thank you. And I was also wondering if you could explain how it was that 20-year time period for a license renewal rather than having it possibly ten years?I MR. DOYLE: You are asking why the license renewal term 20 years? MS. MANN: Yes. MR. DOYLE: I cannot explain the basis for that decision.

I know that the short answer, I guess would be is that that is what is in the regulations.

But the question of why is it 20 years, I can't say that but the term was determined to be 40 years and the regulations allow for plants after 20 years to apply for an additional 20 years of operation.

And that is the process that we are going through. If you have other comments or questions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com 56 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 about the reasons for that, we can take those as comments and respond to those in the final SEIS. MS. MANN: Thank you. DENISE: Next up is Theodora Tsongas. Your line is open. MS. TSONGAS: Yes, I think the MS. FEHST: Excuse me. Caller, would you mind spelling your last name for the record, ? Maybe first and last name. MS . TSONGAS : Yes. My first name is Theodora, T-H-E-O-D-O-R-A.

My last name 1S Tsongas, T, as in Tom, S as in Sam, 0, N as in no, G-A, S as in Sam. MS. FEHST: Thank you. MS. TSONGAS: Shall I go ahead? MS. FEHST: Yes, please go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Go ahead, please. MS. TSONGAS: I believe that my question has been answered.

I just need a little bit of clarification about the ronmental review not on its safety. I assumed that safety was included.

MR. DOYLE: The scope of the environmental review is focused on the environmental impacts of the additional 20-years of operation.

And the draft, the EIS through the NEPA process, we are comparing that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 with other alternatives.

So that is the scope of the environmental review. It is discussed in the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. So that is where the scope of the environmental is defined. The NRC has another review that is also going on at the same time that has documents and reviews and I would say that is probably the larger review, you could say, or is the number of documents or how you want to ify that. It takes longer. But there is a very, very detailed technical review that focusing on how the is able to manage how the plant would manage the effects of aging, the additional 20-years of aging on the components that are passive and long-lived, components that would not expect the expected to normally be during the life of the power plant. So there is a safety review. It is handled by a separate process that the regulations and the and the details of that are explained in 10 CFR Part 54. So the environmental review does not discuss the issues. They are handled by a separate process. The review is not getting is not getting into the environmental issues. So there are two and those are the regulations where they are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 explained and that is how safety is addressed for a license renewal appl ion. MS. TSONGAS: So where would we see those to comment on the safety? MR. DOYLE: The documents that are associated with the safety review are all public documents.

Due to the level of technical detail that is included in that review, there are no meetings I we had for the scoping meeting and like s meeting that we are having right now. There are not, there is not a solicitation of public comments.

Those documents are available.

There is a meeting by an independent committee, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards that reviews the application and provides a recommendation.

And if you wanted to provide a comment on something, the Evaluation Report with Open Items was issued last month. So if you wanted to see the results of the NRC's review, you could go to the NRC's public website for this review. If you search for NRC Columbia Generating Station License Renewal, you will find the NRC's public review, public website for this review. So the environmental review documents are included on there and the safety review documents are also included on there. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 59 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So if you wanted to see the initial results of the NRC I S review, you could find the document on that website. It is called the Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items. It explains the NRC I S determination of the plans to manage aging. So that where the NRC 1 S basis, the NRC I S determination described.

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

I 1m not sure there is a period for public comments.

Can you address that? (Off the record comments.)

A member of the public could call in and ask to participate in the meeting of the review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

That is happening in mid-October.

If you want the details on that meeting I let me know and I will send you the time and date and the steps that you would need to take if you wanted to to provide a comment on that. But the document is publicly available and there is limited solicitation of public comments for the safety review. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISlAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 60 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 MS. TSONGAS: Okay, thanks. MR. DOYLE: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear what you were saying. If we are able to have the moderator your --Denise is that something that you can do? Because it might be eas for you to get it than for us. DENISE: Yes, I can. MR. DOYLE: Okay, that would be great. So if you maybe leave your email address or phone number, I would be happy to provide you with more details on the documents associated with the review and that upcoming meeting that I mentioned.

MS. TSONGAS: Thank you. DENISE: The next question is from Lloyd Marbet. Your line is open. MR. MARBET: Yes, this is Lloyd Marbet. Can you hear me? MS. FEHST: Yes, Lloyd, we can hear you. Would you mind spelling your last name for the record, please? And if you are with an organization, could you please identify that by name and spell it for the record, too, please? MR. MARBET: Yes, my name is Lloyd Marbet, M-A-R-B-E-T.

I am the Execut Director of the Oregon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 Conservancy Foundation and I don't know if anyone else is experiencing the same problem I have but the last three questions that have come up, there has been such a bad echoing on my line, I could barely make out what is being said. So Denise, I hope someone will look into that. And then for my question; I have two. The Columbia Generating Station has an operating license until December 20, 2023. Why is license renewal taking place now when there is 12 years left under the existing license? And why doesn't the NRC set a limit on when these applications can be filed? Because it seems to me the evaluation that takes place here becomes quite dated over a 12-year period before the renewal actually sets in. MR. DOYLE: There are, the window for application is defined in the regulations.

The earliest that a plant is allowed to apply for license renewal is after 20 years of operation.

So right in the middle, you could say, 20 years before their license expires. So Columbia Generating Station came in right about in the middle or so of their window of when they are allowed to come in. The latest that a plant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 62 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 could come in is within f years prior to the ration of their current license. So there is a IS-year window that the plant can apply. Part of the basis for that is that after 20 years of operation, there is sufficient operating experience for the NRC to make a decision.

Another reason for that decision to define the window the way it is that it does take a long period of time for energy-planning decisionmakers to evaluate other options. If the plant is not going to pursue I renewal and shut down or if they are, for the to accommodate other ways to produce power, to build another power plant, to replace this one if it is shut down. So the short answer is that the regulations allow them to come in up to 20 years early and they came in within that window. MR. MARBET: I am going to comment on that during the public comment. So I will just go to my second question.

To what extent does the GElS examine the impact of catastrophic accidents and cancerous radioactive waste disposal operations on Columbia 's Generating Station and the reverse of that, Columbia Generating Station having a catastrophic accident that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 could impact cancerous radioactive waste disposal operations?

MR. DOYLE: The Generic Environmental Impact Statement and the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement do not address the potential for catastrophic accidents specif ly related to this plant being located on Hanford. That issue is not addressed in either the GElS or the draft SEIS. MR. MARBET: I will provide some comment on that as well. That is the extent of my questions.

Thank you. DENISE: And the last question that I have is from Jacqueline Valiquette.

Your line is open. MS. VALIQUETTE:

Hi. MS. FEHST: Jacqueline, would you mind ling your last name for the record, please? And if you are with an organization, representing an zation, could you identify that and spell that as well? MS. VALIQUETTE:

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

MS. FEHST: Thank you. Go ahead with your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 question, please. MS. VALIQUETTE:

You had mentioned that if you are licensed, there is currently no set dump site. But once one is established, how do you transport the waste and will you use public highways to do ? MR. DOYLE: How would the waste be transported to an offsite location after that is shed? I would imagine that that would include highways.

This is not something that I am an expert in and I wouldn't be able to provide much more information than that. But I guess it depends on where the location , the amount of waste. So I imagine that there would be a number of factors that would determine how the waste is transported.

MS. VALIQUETTE:

Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay, are there any clarifying questions from anyone in the audience before we move on to the public comment period? And no other callers with any clarifying questions?

DENISE: I did have one caller that just queued in. And that is from Dawn Reynolds.

Your line is open. MS. REYNOLDS:

Actually, I wanted to make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 65 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 19 20 2 22 23 24 a public comment. Thank you. DENISE: Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay. Then we will move on. We are finished wi th the questions.

We will move on to the public comment period. Thanks, Dan. What we did this afternoon is identify three names at the same time, you know, the first speaker, the second speaker, the third speaker. That enabled the first one to come up and make comments and then the other two whose names were identified knew that they would be coming next. Next up --But because we seem to have a few more callers wi th questions or wi th comments going on the yellow cards, than we do people in the audience, and that may change, but since we have, it seems, many more callers, what I am going to suggest we do this time is take one person from the audience as the first speaker, to be followed by two callers. And then after that three, we will do another audience member to make his or her comments, followed by two speakers and so on. And I will just go over the ground rules again very quickly. Just a reminder that this is the time for comments on the results of the NRC's environmental review on the license renewal application NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON.

D.C. 20005*3701 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 66 for Columbia and we ask that you confine your comments to this subject. Another reminder is we really need to end the meeting on time as a courtesy to all those who have to leave on schedule.

So they should not have to s any part of the meeting because the comments have gone on too long. So we ask that you try to keep your focus on your comments and limit the comments to five minutes. And if you have a question and were able to give a answer, we will do so. But if the question that you are asking really s an in-depth conversation with a member of the NRC Staff who is here, you know, they are prepared to stay for a little while at the close of the meeting. So perhaps that would be the best time to engage in a one-on-one conversation on your question.

And just another reminder I when you step up to the microphone I and callers when you are providing your comments I remember certainly those whose names I didn't ask for a spelling for the reporter I please remember to identify yourself by name when you begin speaking.

And if you haven't already spelled out your name or your organization l please do so during the comment period. And finallYI let's try to give whoever the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 2 22 23 24 caller is our respect and full attention and have just one person speaking at a time. So thank you. So what we will do now is we will have the first speaker, Rich And the callers who should be ready to go with ions would first be James Great, followed by Rachel ing. So first Rich, then James Great, then Rachel St ing, the last two being phone callers. Thank you. MR. SARGENT: Thank you. My name is Sargent. I represent Franklin PUD and my comments here are related to that. And my job duties within Franklin PUD is as their power analyst and also personally.

And I want to thank the NRC for this opportunity to allow public comment and engage in this type of fashion with people in this important subject certainly in our here and nationally.

I can't think of an industry that has had more oversight, both environmentally and safely and safety such to expand the NRC and nuclear industry and rightly so. And being that, was kind of a coincidence I happened to go on a tour of the B Reactor here this Saturday.

And it was nice. Not that there comparison with Columbia Generating but our nation does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 68 have a broad history of using nuclear power. And this site, the Columbia Station, it is a strong asset and uses that appropriately.

Being in the energy industry, I am aware of the alternatives of not having Columbia Generating Station. And the Columbia Generating Station parallels our goals within Franklin PUD and that is to provide our region with reliable power, cost-effective power, and certainly clean power. And the nuclear industry does that and so does Columbia Generating Station. I am to keep my comments in to environmental and not safety because it does have a strong safety record. We do nationally have a safety record and health related with the nuclear industry as well. But I had to go out and replace the power that Franklin gets from Columbia Generating Station, is our second largest resource in our fuel mix. I can do it as effective, as reliable, as clean, as Columbia Generating Station and the nuclear industry.

I have to look at, you know, coal. I have to look at wind. It is not reliable.

And that one thing that I don't think the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 common resident may understand is the reliability issues that we have in our energy industry and what this resource does to that. It is just phenomenal.

Anyway, again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to do this. I think you are doing a great job here looking at the impacts reasonably in regards to the environmental assessment and the alternatives there. I was pleased to see that. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Okay, the next two speakers are the callers James Great followed by Rachel Stierling.

Denise? DENISE: That's James Great? MS. FEHST: Yes, I have a card here for James Great, G-R-E-A-T.

DENISE: I'm not finding that he is connected, unless he registered with another name. MS. FEHST: Okay. These were names that we received with preregistration.

So circumstances may have changed for some of these names. But we will run through them in the order that they appear anyway. The next one is Rachel Stierling.

MS. STIERLING:

Yes, rna' am, I am available.

MS. FEHST: Okay, great. Thank you. Go ahead. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 70 MS. STIERLING:

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

Just two quick points to make. Number one, I have listened to this from all these great minds and from all these great opinions.

The thing that is very clear to me is that we have to absolutely stop relicensing until after we are educated and more importantly learn from what and why caused Fukushima and the damage and the catastrophe that happened there in Japan. We are still receiving reports and testimonials that are just heartbreaking.

And in my opinion, it is imperative that the NRC implement, adopt, and agree, and more importantly enforces new safety measures surrounding the knowledge that we will learn and gain from Fukushima's disaster.

Anything short of that, in my opinion, is a public safety catastrophic risk. Number two, my biggest question is where in the world will the plutonium liquid waste waters go? I am fully aware that the NRC currently is not at all open to the question, it's psychological.

And I would like to present that low-level liquid waste is already seeping NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 and contaminating our environment.

Currently, the chemical and radioact waste --excuse me, I have a cold --are so dangerous that we predict a 20 percent rate in cancer increases in the Native American children, simply because they are drinking the groundwater from the land they come from and the land they live on. And as a taxpayer and citizen of Washington State, as a Native American myself, and as a mother, relicensing at this point with no further review is nothing short of negligence in the first type of way. And I thank you for hearing my comments.

MS. FEHST: Thank you. All right. The next three speakers will be from the audience.

Kathleen Vaughn. Kathleen Vaughn will be next and she will be followed by two telephone callers the first Bella I Berlly, B-E-R-L-L-Y and Paul Finely. MS. VAUGHN: Good evening. 11m Kathleen Vaughn and I am a Commissioner from Snohomish County Publ Utility District in Everett, Washington and of the Energy Northwest Executive Board. And Energy Northwest is a joint action agency that made up of 28 public utility districts and municipalit the State of Washington.

And I wish to correct some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 statements that were made by others providing comments in the venue regarding mixed oxide fuel. The Executive Board of Energy Northwest received a public meeting presentation informing the Board on MOX fuel in 2009. Since then, we have received mUltiple public updates as to industry news information of the study of MOX fuel. Energy Northwest is not a part of a study and no decision has been made by the Executive Board to lObe part of a study. And certainly there has not been any 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 secret meetings that were alluded to earlier in the day at this meeting. If Energy Northwest decides to move forward wi th a paper feasibility study, we will notify the washington State Congressional delegation and publicly announce the decision.

Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment. Next caller is Bella, Bella B-E-R-L-L-Y. Is Bella on the line? DENISE: I do not have Bella. MS. FEHST: Okay and what about Paul Finely, F-I-N-E-L-Y?

DENISE: I am not finding Paul in attendance.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 MS. FEHST: Okay, thank you. Then we will move to the next audience member would be Gerry Pollet. And the next two callers that I have are Warren Zimmermann and Judith Earle. Warren Zimmermann and Judith Earle. MR. POLLET: Gerry Pollet, P-O-L-L-E-T representing Heart of America Northwest, the Hanford Cleanup Watchdog Group. And let's just start with this thought. Thank you for having the phone lines available, demonstrates that with 30 people on the phones that we should have had regional hearings and we should still have hearings around the region, including in Snohomish County where Snohomish PUD a member and your rate payers, including many of my members are concerned about the relicensing and these Seattle or in Vancouver in the Vancouver PUD area. Secondly, saying that nuclear power is clean pretty much like saying that coal is clean because doesn't create nuclear waste. Here at Hanford, you happen to have a good example in the backyard where the CGS reactor sits. So let's start with the fact that this EIS needs to be halted until we know why Fukushima happened, how it happened, what the impacts were, and what specif equipment failures led to which of those impacts. It is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 74 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 wrong, simply wrong to claim that Fukushima is not related to this environmental review. The NRC's Generic EIS estimates that for each and everyone of these license renewals for 20 years, there will be 12 fatal cancers and it then calls this, "acceptable" and a "small" impact. I think the NRC needs to revise this and think about whether or not any cancer death small or acceptable.

And just put it in your own children and say would you view it that way if it was your child. Because you can play the game with numbers but your children will pay the price for years to come. This EIS and this process for creating a supplemental EIS based on a Generic EIS that is 15 years old is ludicrous.

It is simply ludicrous to say we relied on safety evaluations 15 years ago and we will update it for some other license applications but not this one. How ludicrous?

Well that 12 fatal cancer figure I for example, doesn't take into account that the National Academy, the National Research Council has issued the biological effects of radiation, report seven, which the National Consensus Document that greatly increases the estimated health effects and fatal cancers especially for children and women from the same dose of radiation.

So how many fatal deaths would occur NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 75 if we used updated information?

We don't know. Maybe it will be updated. Doubt it. What about the Environmental Impact Statement on what to do with the greater than Class C waste? That is the extremely radioactive waste that comes from inside the reactor vessels, the radiated metals from decommissioning reactors.

It is simply wrong to say we considered that and it has no impact because on a -specific , you have to dispose of the waste not in a generic location, s disposed at the commercial low-level waste dump sitting in the middle of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which apparently the NRC is turning a blind eye on, even though it oversees the regulation of that plant by the State of Washington.

And let's talk about that. A, it is unlined. B, it has massive releases of chemicals and radionuclides at levels immediately dangerous to human health in terms of soil gas vapor for TCE and numerous carcinogens and other chemicals.

And this is where the EIS says there is no impact because we generically considered we have disposal capacity for low level waste and greater than Class C waste. When did we make that decision?

Fifteen years ago. That inappropriate.

It needs to be updated and look at the site-specific NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 76 impacts where this reactor's waste go to get disposed.

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

That's the proposal.

And no, the Energy Northwest Board, because we did ask to see the presentation you were given, you were not given the document, the technical document that said use of plutonium fuel could increase the offsite radiological dose the event of an accident by 40 percent and that if the Fukushima Reactor 3 had a full load of MOX plutonium fuel, that is the percent the radiation dose on top of the already horri effects. And the Energy Northwest Executive Committee and Board were not given those documents.

But why are you hiding more? Now Energy Northwest says we are not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 going to give you the documents you have asked for until December 21st, after the close of this comment period. We have asked the NRC to extend the comment period on the EIS until Energy Northwest comes clean and discloses all the documents requested under Washington1s Public Records Act and the Energy Department discloses its documents under FOIA in regard to the proposal to use plutonium fuel. The National Environmental Policy Act says very clearly and case law is entirely on our side, that all related proposals have to be disclosed and discussed in s EIS. And while we are on that point, let I s just say no one else would ever claim that safety issues don It have to be disclosed in EIS. Human health impacts are part of the NEPA process. Telling people to go to the NRC I S arcane websi te and try to documents about the safety review defeats the entire purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act, which is that all potential significant impacts are to be disclosed in one document for the public to review and comment on. They belong in this document, not somewhere else on the web where you are not even invited to comment. Thank you. MS. FEHST: All right. Thank you for your comment. Is there Warren --Denise do we have Warren NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 Zimmermann or Judith Earle on the phone? DENISE: Warren Zimmermann, your I is open. MR. ZIMMERMANN:

All right. Thank you. My name Warren, W-A-R-R-E-N, Zimmermann, Z as in Zebra, I-M-M-E-R-M-A-N-N and I am with MS. FEHST: Excuse me, caller. I think you are breaking up a little bit. Is it okay now? Okay, shall we Would you mind trying again, please? We have the spelling of your name, thank you. Go ahead with your comment. MR. ZIMMERMANN:

MS. FEHST: No, I'm sorry. You are still breaking up. Can we try another line and come back to you? Judith Earle, is she on the line? DENISE: Judith Earle is not in attendance.

MS. FEHST: Okay. What about Jacquelyn Valiquette?

I believe she asked a clarifying question.

Does she have a comment? MS. VALIQUETTE:

Yes, thank you MS. FEHST: Okay, we are having trouble with the phone. We are having trouble with the phone. While they are working on that, we have one other caller, or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 79 excuse me, one other commenter from the audience.

We will take John Cox. John Cox, please, and then we will get back to the callers. MR. COX: Yes, my name is John Cox. I am a U.S. citizen and a resident of the City of Richland.

And I think this is great where we have some discussion and have an important topic of this nature. And I just say thanks for the opportunity to be here and interact and listen. My comment is that I am concerned and have been for some time and I suspect as many other people here in the audience are, about the lack of a permanent relatively safe national repository for nuclear waste for the byproducts of a power production reactor such as this clear across the nation. And in that regard, I thought that maybe l'd offer a suggestion is that I think personally that NRC ought to consider stopping all licensing renewals in this arena all across the nation, as well as all construction applications until we have such a repository.

And so doing such, it might get us all centered on this important topic. Thank you for this opportunity.

That is all. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 MS. FEHST: Okay, thank you. Thank you for your comment. Should we try the phone again? All right, we will try the phone again. And Warren Zimmermann, if we could try your line again, please. Warren Zimmermann.

DENISE: His line has dropped off. MS. FEHST: Jacque Valiquette.

MS. VALIQUETTE:

Yes. My comment was that I don't think it is responsible to consider transporting a waste of this kind on public roads. There are --that relates to this topic. They sort of say that MS. FEHST: All right. I know. I'm sorry. Once again, the call is breaking up. So we are not able to get everything that you are saying. We can try another line or just take a small break. If we are unable to clear up the lines for any the callers who were on the line that want to make comments, I am hoping that you will be willing to put that in writing via email and send it to the attention of daniel.doyle@nrc.gov and would ask for that written comment only if we are unable to clear up the phone 1 in the next minute or two so that we could get your comment. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 81 They are working on it here and we will give it a try one more time. Meanwhile while he trying to work on Denise if I could just clear with you the lines that you do have. Kevin Carlson Denise, do we have you? We have lost Denise? MR. POLLET: This is (,!""."..,..*u Pollet. What is the possibility of just schedul , I mean, you don't have to be here Richland to reschedule a phone call before the end of the comment period. MS. FEHST: Let me bring the mic over to you so that people can understand what it is you are suggesting.

MR. POLLET: I'm just asking about the possibility of rescheduling on behalf of the people who are on the phones and it is going to be frustrating.

Since you don't have to be in Richland to do this call-in, and it might actually work better if you are at the NRC MR. DOYLE: I understand your request. I can't provide you a response to that right now. I understand you are asking to schedule separate call for the people that weren I t able to comment, to do that before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 82 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 the November 16th deadl and I will get back to you on that. MR. POLLET: If we can't the phone restored, I would appreciate that. MR. DOYLE: Okay. MS. FEHST: Okay, we will try another. Denise are you there? DENISE: I am here. MS. FEHST: Okay, good. Thank you. think Jacquelyn Valiquette was making a comment when we ran into problems.

Is that ? DENISE: She did and her line has also dropped from the conference.

MS. FEHST: Okay, dropped before finished.

Okay. Kevin Carlson? DENISE: Kevin Carlson. Let me try that line. One moment. MR. CARLSON: Hi, this is Kevin. Can you hear me? MS. FEHST: Yes. Hi, Kevin. Go ahead with your comment please. MR. CARLSON: Great. I've got a little echo so sorry if I get confused.

I would like to call for a thorough and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross,com I

83 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 1 20 21 22 23 24 assessment of the risk of MOX fuel, that that be MS. FEHST: I'm sorry, Kevin. You started out strong and it started breaking up again. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MS. FEHST: And now you sound good. MR. CARLSON: Oh, I sound good again? MS. FEHST: Let I s give it one more try with you. Go ahead. MR. CARLSON: I'll forge ahead. MS. FEHST: Thank you. MR. CARLSON: -need to consider impacts if a national disaster such as an earthquake causes radiation leaks and how that would impact a cover for the reactor. I am thinking of things 1 the challenge of keeping cooling water where it is needed. And I also think that we need to consider a risk assessment for the spent fuel pools that are looped through the reactor vessel. I would like to urge the use of hardened casks for the spent fuel. And also give, you know, thanks to the NRC I ize it is a challenge ins with technical problems, but I heard this afternoon's meeting --But I think it highlights that we need public state to state meetings around the nation so that its people can really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 84 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 icipate properly.

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

Is there a Carol --And we will move on to the next caller. Carolyn Mann, if she is on the 1 MS. MANN: Yes, I am. MS. FEHST: Okay, go ahead, Carolyn. MS. MANN: Well thank you MS. FEHST: Okay, I I m sorry, Carolyn. We're having a problem again. I wonder, does it have anything to do with the way people are speaking into the phone? No. Yes, okay. We are going to just ask you to hang on for a minute and we will it another try in just a second. Denise, can you hear me? Oh, okay. Sorry. Okay, I will wait for the signal from our operations man here. (Pause.) MS. FEHST: Okay, we are going to it one more try. Carolyn, are you on the line? MS. MANN: Yes, I am. MS. FEHST: Okay, would you continue?

And apologize for all these technical difficulties we are having but please go ahead. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com I

85 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 22 23 24 1 MS. MANN: I would like to start by MS. FEHST: No. Okay, I'm sorry. We are hearing that that is not working. Maybe as --We have another backup option here. And that would be (Pause. ) MS. MANN: Yes, I can hear you. MR. DOYLE: Okay, maybe what we can do is call the name for the person and then turn off the microphone, turn off this other microphone.

And then I guess there could still be feedback with the one up front but let's try that and see. Can you perhaps lower the volume of s speaker in the room please, Blaine? We are trying to figure out how we can eliminate this and I really apologize to everyone.

I appreciate your patience for us trying to work through this. But we do have, the meeting is scheduled through 10: 00. We are not going to end it until we can try to get these people's comments that have called in and have taken their time. The phone should still be connected.

Can you ask if Denise is still there? Denise, are you still online? DENISE: I am but we cannot hear you very well. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com 86 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 MS. FEHST: We can hear her. MR. DOYLE: Yes, stand by. (Pause. ) MR. DOYLE: Okay, who is the next person you want to talk to? MS. FEHST: Carolyn Mann would bel once again, for the third time. Hopefully the third time is the charm and Carolyn will be able to finish her comment. MR. DOYLE: Okay, Carolyn Mann, if she is still onl can she start with her comments, please?I DENISE: Okay, let me open the line. Go ahead, Carolyn. MS. MANN: Yes, thank you. Thanks for all the efforts that you are making to be able to hear us. So for my comment, I would like to urge that the NRC hold consideration of relicensing the Columbia Generat Station until the Environmental Impact Review of the Fukushima Reactor is completed.

It seems that there a deal of information that is continually coming out each day about what has taken place and how it is affecting the individuals through the environment there. And it seems imperative that that information be reviewed and that the whole process that is happening right with regard to Columbia Generating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 87 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 Station just be put on hold until such time as this information can be processed and understood as it relates to our local concerns.

I also really want to urge that the NRC prohibit all the use of mixed oxide fuel. There an extreme danger of that particular form of fuel as we have certainly learned from the Fukushima disaster.

I would urge that not even be considered as a possibility in this country. I am also extremely concerned as other callers have been about the use of building spent fuel pools used for storage and precisely like those that were used in the Fukushima design. And I would really like to urge that removal of all the spent fuel to harden concrete casts begin immediately.

And lastly I would like to urge the Environmental Impact Statement disclose the environmental impact of potential fires, explosions, climate change-related events or earthquakes, anything that might release radiation and look very closely at these, as it seems that the unusual types of events that are not so much expected such as the earthquake in Japan was so much more severe than anyone would have expected have actually been taking place. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com 88 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 1 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 And one other issue and that is that I would hope that much more consideration be given to the medical consequences of radiation exposure to individuals over the short term, as well as long-term and involve radiation as it is experienced in the environment and internal radiation due to contaminated food, water, such things as this. So thank you very much for listening and considering my concerns.

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

The next three callers that I have here are Mr. Bertish, who I believe was one of the questioners earlier, followed by Kathryn Flores, followed by Suzanne Thorton. Denise, do you have any of these three? DAVID: 11m sorry. This David. 1111 be taking over the call right at this moment. And 11m sorry, which participant?

MS. FEHST: It would be Mr. Bertish, B-E-R-T-I-S-H.

He was one of the questioners earl followed by Kathryn Flores, to be followed by Suzanne Thorton. DAVID: All right, one moment, please. (Pause. ) NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 89 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 20 2J 22 23 24 DAVID: All right. I do not have Thorton or Bertish. And what was the third name? MS. FEHST: You do not have Thorton or Bertish? DAVID: No, I do not. MS. FEHST: Okay, thank you for checking.

And Kathryn Flores, F-L-O-R-E-S.

These are names that were preregistered.

So DAVID: All right. Apparently at this time I do not have Flores either. MS. FEHST: All right. Then the other names are Carole ltner, H-I-L-T-N-E-R.

DAVID: I do not show that person's name either. MS. FEHST: Okay. Illira Walker, I-L-L I-R-A Walker? DAVID: No, I do not have that name at this time. MS. FEHST: Okay. James Kelly or Jude Kone, K-O-N-E? DAVID: That was, I'm sorry, Connor? MS. FEHST: James Kelly, K-E-L-L-Y.

DAVID: Kelly. MS. FEHST: Yes. James Kelly. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 DAVID: Okay, and the other name? MS. FEHST: Jude Kone, K-O-N-E. DAVID: Okay. Not at this time, I do not show their names. MS. FEHST: Okay and then the final card I have is Charles Johnson, who I believe was one of the questioners following Dan Doyle's presentation.

DAVID: I'm sorry. That name again? MS. FEHST: Charles Johnson. DAVID: Johnson. Thank you. Not at this time, I do not show their name. MS. FEHST: Okay. And the last one I have is M.C. Goldberg.

DAVID: No, I do not show their name at thi s time. MS. FEHST: Okay. Well those are all the card names that I have. And I am wondering are there any other lers on the line whose names I do not have who would like to make a comment at s time? DAVID: I I m sorry, would you like me to open up the lines of the call? MS. FEHST: Yes, are there any callers on the line who would like to make a comment and haven't had an opportunity to do so, yet? NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 1 12 13 .14 1 1 19 20 2 22 23 24 91 (Chorus of yes.) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I preregistered and my name hasn't been called. MS. MORRIS: This is Nancy Morris and I had some comments I wanted to make. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I need to make comments.

MR. MARBET: And this is Lloyd Marbet. MS. FEHST: Okay. MS. CHUDY: This is Cathryn Chudy. I preregistered.

MS. FEHST: All right, if I could, let me have a moment here. We will layout the same order. We will have one person speaking at a time. Each person who is called on to talk will be asked to spell their first and last name. If you are speaking on behalf of an organization, p identi that organization.

And finally I when it is your turn to make a comment, please confine your comments to five minutes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And can we also listen to what is being said? MS. FEHST: You know, at this time we have I a makeshift backup. Well, let me say this. You certainly will hear what is being said when all is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 92 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 1 1 1 20 21 22 23 24 responded to. Every substantive comment that is made will be responded to and included in the final SEIS, when that is issued. Your question though, goes to can you hear anyone now. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Exactly. MS. FEHST: And we have our technical person still trying to work on the I And at this time MR. DOYLE: This is Daniel Doyle. There is nothing else that is being said in the room. Everyone is carefully listening to what being presented by the speakers.

The only other speakers I believe that are left are the ones that are on the phone. So what we are doing is we are going to call the names of someone who is speaking.

And if you are on the phone, you should be able to hear the other caller on the phone while they are talking. And then if anything needs to be said by the NRC staff or anyone else here in the room, we will come up to the front of the podium where the phone is and you would be able to hear it there as well. So you would be able to hear everything that is spoken. So with that in mind, Dave, I am going to ask you to identify each caller. I don I t have the names. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 93 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 I am going to ask you, who I bel ieve you have the names. Is that right? DAVID: Do you want me to go ahead and put it back on listen only? I'm sorry. Everyone is back on listen only. We have Carolyn Mann. Would you like me to open up that line first? MS. FEHST: Carolyn Mann has already provided a comment. So I believe her comment period is over. DAVID: I'm sorry, Rachel Stierling.

MS. FEHST: Rachel has already given a comment. DAVID: Okay. MS. FEHST: There was named Lindsey? DAVID: Nancy Morris. MS. FEHST: Nancy Morris, I believe has already made a comment. MS. FEHST:

MS. FEHST: Yes, has already made a comment. There was someone named Lindsey who was preregistered who has not yet made a comment. DAVID: Yes. The only parties I have left NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 16 1 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 94 are Lloyd Marbet, Cathryn Chudy, and Madya Panfilio.

MS. FEHST: Can you spell that? What's that last one? DAVID: P-A-N-F-I-L 1-0. MS. FEHST: Welllet's start with Lloyd, to be followed by Cathryn, to be followed by Panfil and we will see who is left. DAVID: Okay, I I m sorry. Give me that list one more time, please. MS. FEHST: WeIll start with Lloyd, DAVID: Lloyd. MS. FEHST: To be followed by Cathryn, DAVID: Okay. MS. FEHST: to be followed by Panfilio.

DAVID: Excellent.

Okay. One moment. Thank you. Lloyd, your line is open. MR. MARBET: Yes, this is Lloyd Marbet . Am I being heard? I really have no idea whether I am connected to this process or not. MS. FEHST: Lloyd, we can hear you. We can hear you, Lloyd. The audience, everyone who is in the room can hear you. Go ahead, please. MR. MARBET: You know, for the last 45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 95 minutes I have been disconnected from this hearing. I have listened to technicians trying to fix the problem, interspersed with bursts of static and screeches of electronic feedback.

And I don I t know what the problem is but I do know this is not a way to take public input or promote public involvement.

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

And there is not an opportunity for them to effectively participate because they are now no longer a part of the process. Now I asked questions during this process and one of them had to do with the operating license being renewed at this time 12 years out from the end of the operating license. Conducting a license renewal now misses the opportunity to thoroughly examine this nuclear plant I s operation in light of the lessons being learned from the accident at Fukushima.

Reviewing this license extension now ignores the advances in science and engineering over the next 12 years which can improve the 1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 96 2 3 4 6 7 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 level of analys which takes place closer to when an operating license expires. And also, it affects the analysis of availability of alternat As we have seen in recent times, the cost of wind energy has come down. The cost of photovol taics has come down. All those have an impact on what might be available to replace the risks that we run in operating the Columbia Generating Station. In looking at the GElS, and our organization, the Oregon Conservancy Foundation, we are not finished in our review, but in looking at it, we find that there is no seismic analysis in the GElS. It ignores the impact of large seismic events occurring greater than the reactor design is capable of withstanding.

It fails to address the recent study that was published in the news showing earthquakes near Hanford are not as unlikely as first thought. This study was performed by Richard Blakely and his colleagues at the USGS. There should be an analysis of this and it should be a part of this particular review. I am very concerned about the MOX fuel issue, especially in light of what Gerry said. And by the way, I want to thank Gerry for the lengths that he went to try and enable us to be a part of this hearing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. (202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 97 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 through this inadequate phone process that we are going through. He raised a point that I was not aware of, that apparently Energy Northwest is not supplying the documents on the MOX situation or their application until after the end of the comment period. That is outrageous.

I would hope that the NRC would recognize what is going on here and would extend the public comment period just as a matter of courtesy and not only that, but as an opportunity for there to be further analys of whether in fact there is information that should be a part of this particular analysis that is taking place now, not some amendment that takes place later. As for the spent fuel and waste issues, you know, the spent fuel pool in this reactor is similar to what is in the Fukushima reactor, Mark I reactors and raises questions again of the kind of interaction that can take place in a catastrophic event between the spent fuel pool and in the other ongoing events, such as the earthquake that is not being examined in this EIS. Also the continued operation of the columbia Generating Station adds to the overall backlog of radioactive waste which has no final repository.

It is unconscionable for this industry to continue under NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 98 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 these circumstances and I agree with the input that was provided at least by someone that I heard at the beginning, I think about 45 minutes ago or so, who said that in fact we should hold off on licensing renewal and new license applications until that issue is resolved.

We agree. Finally, and this came out in my question during the question period regarding the GElS examining catastrophic accidents in Hanford's cleanup operation affecting the Columbia Generating Station and the reverse of that, the Columbia Generating Station having catastrophic events affecting the Hanford cleanup operation.

You know, you would think that after Fukushima we would have got the message. I never ever in the whole time that I have been involved in the NRC's licensing proceedings ever heard that there would be an accident 1 that which occurred at Fukushima.

It was unheard of. It was not even considered.

Multiple plants, multiple failures.

I mean, is just amazing to me. And yet here we are again. This is not being analyzed in this license renewal application EIS and it is a terrible oversight.

I think is time for this industry to own up to its responsibility to public health and safety. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 And I would encourage those members of the NRC that are listening to my words anyway to rise to this occasion.

This has gone on too long and it is time for it to cease and I would hope that something would be done about it. And my final comment again is would you please hold publ hearings in communities down river from the Columbia Generating Station. We are impacted by the operation of this plant. We have a right to effectively participate, not have to go through what I just went through. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comments.

The next is Cathryn, I don I t have her last name. Cathryn. Dave are you there? Did we lose Dave? (Pause. ) MS. FEHST: We can give it a minute to see if they come back on. We are still connected.

MR. DOYLE: The cell phone up here on the podium is still connected to the line. We will wait another couple minutes to see if something comes back but we are not hearing a response from the bridge line, although we are showing that we are still connected up here. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.w. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 But I just want to take a moment to emphasize that this public meeting is not the only way to submit comments, that as included on this slide, as described in the Federal Register notice, the instructions on the website and included in the first few pages of the draft SEIS itself, there are several ways to submit written comments e through the mail or electronically, so online at regulations.gov or by fax at the number here on the screen. So there are other ways to submit comments than at tonight I s meeting. The comments that are received by any means are all treated the same. They are all included whether in the transcript or by letters that are sent to us, they are all included in the final SEIS and the NRC will provide a response in the final SEIS to all those comments that we do have. Any luck on the phone I Dave, are you there? We can still talk. We will wai t another minute or two and see if we can this reconnected. (Pause.) DAVID: Are we on? MS. FEHST: Dave, is that you? Dave, are you there? MS. CHUDY: Hello? NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MS. FEHST: And who am I speaking to? Caller, please i dentify yourself.

Is th is Lindsey or Cathryn? DAVID: Hello, MS. CHUDY: MS. FEHST: Okay, Cathryn, you are the caller. Please spell your last name for the record, please and please identify any organization you might be affiliated with for your comment. MS. CHUDY: Well I am a little confused because I just read my statement.

Did you not hear me? MS. FEHST: Cathryn, it is your turn. We had some technical difficulties.

We were not aware. MS. CHUDY: Okay. So, I just went ahead and did my statement.

So if you didn I t hear it, I will do it again now. MS. FEHST: Thank you, Cathryn and I am so sorry for these technical difficulties.

MS. CHUDY: Okay. My name Cathryn, C-A-T-H-R-Y-N, Chudy, C-H-U-D-Y.

I live in Vancouver, Washington and work in Portland, Oregon. I am testifying as a Washington resident and also as a Board Member of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 102 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 2 22 23 24 I also agree with the previous caller who said that there should be regional meetings where people can show up in person to testify. I also would like to note that I don't believe we can separate issues of safety from environmental impact issues. And particularly in light of the Fukushima disaster, I think they entirely related and should be considered for the final decision.

I believe they are realizing maybe the Columbia Generating Station was a bad ideaj it poses risks that are far too signi cant to ignore or gloss over. This plant has been identified by the industry-funded institute of the Nuclear Power Operations as one of two in the country most in need of improvements in operations and "human performance." In other words, one of the two most primary ones the country. It has elicited heightened oversight due to a trend of too many unplanned shutdowns over the past several years. Shutdowns stress the safety systems in a plant that nearing the end of its 20-year span originally intended to operate. I am greatly concerned about continuing to operate an aging plant that is fully run and that poses hundreds of risks that have not been adequately addressed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 103 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 in the Environmental Impact Statement draft. The EIS failed to consider the impact of risk in the proposal to use plutonium fuel. It fails to disclose and consider the impact of six major safety problems that were formerly reported as unresolved by NRC Staff as of September 2011. The dangerous location of the reactor on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the Environmental Impact Statement must disclose and consider the impacts of climate change events, fire, earthquake, explosions that could lead to leaking of radiation from Hanford lit It led to address the spent fuel pools at sk. It failed to address what will happen to the waste. And there has been no seismic analysis, which is of particular concern in light of the Fukushima accident combined with new research findings related to potential seismic habits of the region. If I understand correctly, the NRC position is that environmental risks exposed by Fukushima will be handled through their normal regulatory process. I find this dangerously ironic, in light of the Associated Press's investigative report published in June of this year that federal regulators have been repeatedly weakening safety standards or simply failing to enforce them order to keep aging reactors operating within NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 104 II safety standards.

tI This is simply unacceptable , given 2 the NRC's charge to ensure adequate protection of public 3 health and safety. 4 If the NRC truly intends on ensuring the adequate protection of public health and safety, should deny this license renewal and apply the money that would be spent on operating safety to invest in conservation and renewable energy sources to replace the power of this reactor. Thank you. 10 MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment and 11 thank you for your willingness to give your statement a 12 second time. 13 Mr. Panfilio would be next. Mr. Panfilio, 14 could you identify yourself by name and also by any 15 organization you might be affiliated with pertaining to 16 your comment? 17 MR. PANFILIO:

It is Madya Panfilio, 18 M-A-D-Y-A, P, as in Paul, A-N, F as in Frank, I-L-I-O, 19 from Vancouver, Washington and a private citizen. 20 For the citizens of the Northwest, owners 2 of the Columbia Generating Station, and the world, 22 Fukushima is a wake-up call to the world as to the 23 dangerous world we have created. And now we must take 24 responsibility for the arcane nuclear energy causing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 105 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 1 2 global climate change. It is time to get to the truth of how gravely dangerous the chemicals are. More public hearings are extremely important.

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

Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment. Dave, do we have anyone else on the line who is prepared to make a comment? DAVID: Currently at this time, there are just the part that you had mentioned already asked their questions i Nancy Morris, Rachel Stierling, Carolyn Mann, Cathryn Chudy, and Madya is the only party left on the call. MS. FEHST: Okay, there isn't a Lindsey on the line waiting to make a comment? (Pause. ) MS. FEHST: And maybe while you are checking that, we have another audience member who would like to make a comment. Ed May. And we will get back to the line one more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 106 time after this comment. MR. MAY: I hope I don J t speak too loud. My name is Ed May. I am a union ironworker.

I really just have a few comments.

Having built nuclear plants, worked in coal f plants and built them, and worked in and built , there is no easy way for me to say this. I feel much safer working in a nuke plant than I did at the previous two. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment. Dave on the 1 , is there any other caller who would like to make a comment at tonight's meeting? DAVID: Apparently at this time I can open up the lines if you would like me to. MS. FEHST: Let's do that. Let's take that chance and see if there is anyone remaining who would like to make a comment. DAVID: The lines are open. MS. MORRIS: This is Nancy Morris. Can you hear me? MS. FEHST: Yes, Nancy, we can hear you. I believe you made a comment earlier or asked a question.

MS. MORRIS: Given the fact that you asked for questions in the beginning for clarification, MS. FEHST: Yes. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005*3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 107 MS. MORRIS: -I made no comments.

I asked a question.

MS. FEHST: Excellent.

Okay. Yes, we have you down for questions and now it your time to make your comment. Please go ahead. MS. MORRIS: You said to wait to make a comment when it was over. MS. FEHST: Yes, that's f Thank you. MS. MORRIS: Anyway, I wanted to make a comment that --Is it okay to go ahead? MS. FEHST: Yes. Please make your comment. Go ahead. It is your turn. Please make a comment. MS. MORRIS: Yes, this is Nancy Morris. I wanted to comment, first of all, I agree wi th Gerry Pollet and I agree with the two previous women who made comments so I won't try to belabor what they said. They said it very, very well. But I wanted to add that I think it is very disconcerting to have our PUD use the Columbia Generating Station to use nuclear power and also in one case denying documents that are necessary for further clarification on types of hardened casks for the spent fuel waste. I also find that the use of clean power is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 108 a form of propaganda literally and also anyone who says 2 nuclear power is safe has continually ignored all of the 3 dangers. Essentially that is what happening.

4 And if you continually, if the industry continually ignores long-term health effects or long-term environmental impacts when they are assessing safety standards, then anyone can say anything is safe. And quite frankly, given the way these type of reviews are going and the way the industry is observing 10 itself in terms of always these low-level dangers. I 11 think not that the licensee system should be completely 12 reviewed and have different and higher standards 13 instigated.

That would certainly allow them to compare 14 Fukushima and what happened there. 1 And also, too, again, too, actually recognize all the standards that have been improved in 1 terms of wind energy and solar energy to incorporate that 18 terms of cost of what it would be to have those over 19 the next 20 years versus having the safety standards 20 improved at this plant is very unsafe. And I really feel 21 insulted when we have a power analyst or any 22 representative who would continually use the term of 23 nuclear clean power waste in a world of scientist who 24 completely disagree if this were a physicist forum. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C, 20005-3701 109 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment and your patience.

Do we have any other callers who would like to make a comment tonight? MS. STIERLING:

This is Rachel Stierling from Heart of America Northwest and I would like to follow-up a little bit on what Nancy had to say and say that I am just as shocked as she is. And that if we can all sit by and let regulatory commissions sort of to perceive things that we already know are common sense, I think we are, gosh, we are giving this by extension to our children.

And maybe it is the tree-hugger philosophy, maybe it's not but it is bullshit and we all know what it is, to be frank. I hear a giggle in the background but you know what I mean. It is ridiculous that we s around and look at and light of what we have seen in the last couple of months, we don't actually have some sort of balance on this and really start to look at it in terms of what it means for our future generations, even when my grandchildren.

It is either our grandchildren or either our kids. We are irresponsible if we are not doing better than that and we should be. So that is all I am going to have to say about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else on the line who would like to add to a comment or make an initial comment? (Pause.) MS. FEHST: I'll take that as a no. I think we are finished with the callers. Dave, are you there? DAVID: Yes, I am. MS. FEHST: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we hadn't lost the line. It sounds like there are no further callers who are interested in making a comment tonight. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to make a comment or add to a comment before we close the meeting for tonight? Yes, okay. So Gerry Pollet would like to. Come on up to the podium, please. MR. POLLET: Gerry Pollet with Heart of America Northwest.

I cut myself short because I wanted to let other people go. Again, thank you for the Staff's patience.

You have been remarkably patient with the technical problems.

I really appreciate it. The safety issues that need to be disclosed and discussed include mitigation for this reactor of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 111 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 22 23 24 effects of Hanford accidents and the ability to recover from an accident.

For instance, we all know in light of Fukushima, or we should know that being able to restore power is a rather critical function.

The impact of a release at Hanford could very ly preclude the restoration of power to the reactor and that this EIS also needs to examine the question of what happens when there are mUltiple failures.

CGS is not going to be the only facility at Hanford in the event of a serious design-basis earthquakes or some other accident that requires restoration of power on an urgent basis. There aren I t enough linemen available to bring that power in. If there is a take cover on the Hanford s , who is going to being in fuel or lay in I ? And if the fuel pool for cesium and strontium or another facility has potential for criticality at the same time, or there a tank rupture and release or aligned leak and release, we need to consider how in the world we are going to mitigate that and restore functionality at this reactor at the same time. And with great dismay I have to say to read in the EIS that based on NRC's incredibly lax rules, restoration of power, even after the Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 identified it as a concern and suggested being able to survive without power for ten hours instead of seven and five, that was rejected by the applicant, Energy Northwest, and the NRC accepts the ection of that as "not being cost-effective." That is ridiculous.

The notion that restoration of power having to wait ten hours instead of seven hours can be rejected on the basis of saying that we have done a cost-benefit analysis and the cost doesn't justify being able to do that. The same with being able to have effective diesel backup. I just really felt that it is very important that we look at what the ionships are on the Hanford site. This is the commercial reactor in the entire country located in frankly what is the stupidest possible location.

It is on the river for cooling water. We all know that. Back the 1970s, it was free land, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

Let I s build five reactors here. But it was a stupid idea. And at the time in the '70s, no one really knew what was going on at Hanford and what the risks were. The public didn't know. The utility di that comprised WPPSS didn't know what the risks were from high level nuclear waste tanks at that time from other nuclear facilit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 12 13 14 15 16 1 1 2 Now we know. And it is not wise to ignore it. Thank you. MS. FEHST: Thank you for your comment. Does anyone else have anything to add? Any final comment? Any new comment? If not, we will adjourn the meeting and close for now. And I really want to thank you for your patience throughout all these technical difficulties.

I want to really thank you for your respectful listening to all the participants, both the callers and your fellow audience members and I want to remind you of what Dan said earlier. There are many different ways to make comments.

Public participation at this meeting is not the only one. Written comments are received by email, by snail mail, by fax. And we do take into account every single comment, every single substantive comment that we receive. And we do hope that we hear from you. And once again, I really want to thank you for your attention and your attendance.

And thank you again. Good night. (Whereupon, at 9:53 p.m., the foregoing proceeding was adjourned.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 22