ML11273A140
| ML11273A140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/2011 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-1120 | |
| Download: ML11273A140 (77) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title: Seabrook Station License Renewal Public Meeting - Evening Session
Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: Hampton, New Hampshire
Date: Thursday, September 15, 2011
Work Order No.: NRC-1120 Pages 1-76
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 + + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 4 PRELIMINARY SITE-SPECIFIC RESULTS OF THE 5 LICENSE RENEWAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR 6 SEABROOK STATION 7 + + + + +
8 Upper Great Hall 9 One Liberty Lane 10 One Liberty Lane East 11 Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 12 + + + + +
13 Thursday, September 15, 2011 14 7:00 p.m.
15 FACILITATOR:
16 BRIAN ANDERSON 17 NRC STAFF PRESENTING:
18 MICHAEL WENTZEL, Environmental Project Manager, Office 19 of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 2 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1 (7:00 p.m.)
2 BRIAN ANDERSON: Good evening ladies and 3 gentlemen. This is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 meeting to discuss license renewal for the Seabrook 5 Nuclear Power Station.
6 My name is Brian Anderson. I will be the 7 facilitator for tonight's meeting.
8 The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 9 the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 10 related to the license renewal review for Seabrook 11 Nuclear Power Station.
12 The NRC staff will make a presentation.
13 We'll have a brief question and answer session, but 14 the main purpose of today's meeting is to hear your 15 comments on the NRC's review. The NRC's review of the 16 Seabrook license renewal application is not yet 17 complete. The comments that are provided today and 18 after this meeting will be considered by the NRC staff 19 before it issues its Final Supplemental Environmental 20 Impact Statement sometime next year.
21 I'd like to start by introducing some of 22 the NRC staff members that are here tonight. I'd like 23 to introduce Mr. Mike Wentzel. Mike is the 24 Environmental Project Manager for the Seabrook license 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 3renewal review. I'd also like to introduce Mr. Rick 1 Plasse -- Rick is the Safety Project Manager for the 2 Seabrook license renewal review. Dave Wrona is the 3 Chief of the License Renewal Projects Branch Number 2.
4 Mike, Rick and Dave all work in the NRC headquarters 5 facility near Washington, DC.
6 I'd also like to introduce Diane Screnci -
7 - Diane is in the back. She's a Public Affairs 8 officer with the Region 1 office the NRC maintains 9 near Philadelphia. I'd also like to introduce Mr.
10 Rich Conte. Rich is the Chief of Engineering Branch 11 Number 1, also located at the NRC's Region 1 office 12 near Philadelphia. I'd also like to introduce Mr.
13 Bill Raymond. Bill is the Senior Resident Inspector 14 here at the Seabrook Station.
15 For those that don't know, the Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission has at least two Resident 17 Inspectors assigned to each nuclear power plant in the 18 United States. NRC Resident Inspectors live in the 19 local communities and they perform daily safety 20 reactor inspections at every nuclear power plant in 21 this country.
22 I'd also like to introduce a member of 23 Senator Ayotte's office that's here tonight -- Mike 24 Scala -- in the back. I'd like to thank Mike for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 4 taking the time to join us tonight.
1 I'd like to cover a few housekeeping items 2 before we get into the formal part of the presentation 3 and meeting tonight. I think everybody probably 4 noticed that there are tables of materials in the 5 lobby as you came into the auditorium. Please feel 6 free to help yourself with paper copies of any NRC 7 literature that's there -- for use during this meeting 8 and even afterwards. I'd also ask -- to help minimize 9 distractions during the meeting -- if you could please 10 silence your cell phones. Either turn them off or put 11 them in vibrate mode -- whatever you prefer.
12 The agenda for tonight's meeting's going 13 to start with a formal presentation by the NRC staff.
14 We'll follow that with a short question-and-answer 15 session. We'll then move to hearing your comments.
16 Because the main purpose of this meeting is to hear 17 public comments related to the Seabrook license 18 renewal and Environmental Review, we've allotted 25-19 minutes for the NRC presentation and 25-minutes for 20 the question-and-answer session. We wanted to leave 21 the majority of the time for hearing your comments.
22 So that's what the remaining two-hours of the meeting 23 are set aside for.
24 During the question-and-answer session --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 5 I'll say this again after the presentation's done --
1 the NRC staff is prepared to talk about the review 2 process and the preliminary results of the 3 Environmental Review that's taken place for the 4 Seabrook license renewal application. Since only a 5 limited number of NRC technical staff are here, NRC 6 staff might not be able to answer all questions that 7 you have. They'll certainly be prepared to answer 8 questions related to this review process and to the 9 preliminary results of the Environmental Review, but 10 other questions might need to be taken as comments.
11 We might need to follow-up with you later outside of 12 this meeting.
13 And because there are very few NRC 14 technical experts that are here at the meeting 15 tonight, the NRC staff does not intend to respond to 16 comments that you provide during the last two-hours of 17 the meeting. The NRC will provide written responses 18 to all comments it receives -- not just at this 19 meeting, but for the remainder of the comment period 20 that follows this meeting.
21 Finally, before we get started, I'd like 22 to just cover a few ground rules for tonight's 23 meeting. There are a number of people that have 24 signed-up to provide comments. So, based on the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 6 number of people that have signed-up -- I'd like to 1 ask that everybody please be concise and please limit 2 your time to five-minutes when you provide comments.
3 I wanted to set the stage there so that everybody has 4 an opportunity to provide comments. And that 5 everybody has an equal amount of time. In the event 6 that you are not able to provide all the comments that 7 you want during the five-minute period, if there's 8 time left over at the end of the meeting we'll 9 certainly allow you to provide additional comments.
10 But providing comments at this meeting 11 here today is not the only way to provide comments.
12 You don't necessarily have to say anything at this 13 meeting for your comments to be registered by the NRC.
14 There are other ways to do that and NRC staff will 15 discuss that during their presentation.
16 There's a court reporter in the back of 17 the room. We are transcribing this meeting so we have 18 a clear record of what's said here. So, to help with 19 that process, I'd like to ask that anybody that likes 20 to speak, please only speak into a microphone. During 21 the question-and-answer session and during the comment 22 period, I'll provide a microphone for you to speak.
23 For those same reasons, I'd also like to ask that we 24 only have one person speak at a time. It's very 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 7 important that we have a clear transcript of what is 1 said here tonight, so everybody that speaks --
2 speaking into a microphone and only having one person 3 talk at a time is a very good way to make sure that 4 we've got a clear record of what happens tonight.
5 Lastly, I'll say that it's possible that 6 you're going to hear opinions that might be different 7 from your own tonight. I'd like to ask that we treat 8 each other with respect and courtesy during this 9 meeting.
10 Do those ground rules sound like something 11 that everybody can live with?
12 PAUL GUNTER: Absolutely.
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Good. Thank you. With 14 that, I'll turn it over to the NRC staff for a 15 presentation. Mike --
16 THOMAS SAPORITO [via telephone]: Just a 17 quick question -- are you going to notify us with 18 about one-minute left at the end of five-minutes?
19 BRIAN ANDERSON: The question was --
20 During the five-minute comment period, will I notify 21 you as your time is winding down? I certainly can do 22 that. What I have a habit of doing is standing in the 23 back while comments are being made and as time 24 approaches five-minutes, I'll slowly start to move 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 8forward. So, the closer I get to the podium, the 1 closer you are to your five-minutes and probably over.
2 So, I'm not trying to infringe on your space, but 3 that's a way of keeping time.
4 THOMAS SAPORITO: Thank you.
5 BRIAN ANDERSON: A-hmm. Mike --
6 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Great. Good evening.
7 As Brian said earlier, my name's Mike Wentzel. I am 8 the Project Manager at the NRC that's responsible for 9 coordinating the Environmental Review activities for 10 the Seabrook Station license renewal application. I 11 gave this warning earlier today and I'd like to give 12 it as well -- I don't have a good --
13 THOMAS SAPORITO: [indiscernible]
14 MICHAEL WENTZEL: We do have somebody on 15 the phone that's participating in the meeting this 16 evening. 17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Mike -- hold on for just 18 second. Let me see if I can position this phone a 19 little closer to the speaker.
20 For those on the phone, I moved the phone 21 probably as close as I can to one of the speakers here 22 in the room. Does that sound like it's any better?
23 THOMAS SAPORITO: I can hear you loud and 24 -- 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 9 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay.
1 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Anyway, as I was saying 2 -- I don't have an indication of what slide I'm on.
3 So if it looks like I'm out of sync with what the 4 presentation is, please just call my attention to it 5 and I'll try to get back into sync.
6 Okay. On August 1st, the NRC published 7 its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 8 -- or Draft SEIS as we refer to it -- related to the 9 Seabrook Station license renewal Environmental Review.
10 The Draft SEIS documents the NRC's preliminary review 11 of the environmental impacts associated with renewing 12 the license for Seabrook Station for an additional 20-13 years and today I'm here to present those results to 14 you. 15 I hope that the information that we 16 provide will help you understand what we've done so 17 far and the role that you can play in helping us to 18 make sure that the Final Impact Statement is accurate 19 and complete.
20 Here's the agenda for the meeting this 21 evening. I'm going to discuss the Agency's regulatory 22 role; the preliminary findings of our Environmental 23 Review, including the power generation alternatives 24 that were considered; I will present the current 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 10 schedule for the remainder of the Environmental 1 Review; and how you can submit comments outside of 2 this meeting. From there, I will take time to briefly 3 discuss two-topics that are not related to the 4 Seabrook Station license renewal application process, 5 and those are going to be -- well, let me correct that 6 -- the Environmental Review of the Seabrook Station 7 license renewal application. These are the concrete 8 issues at Seabrook and the NRC's response to 9 Fukushima.
10 At the end of the presentation, there will 11 be time for questions and answers on the Environmental 12 Review process and most importantly, time for you to 13 present your comments on the Draft SEIS.
14 The NRC was established to regulate 15 civilian uses of nuclear material including facilities 16 that produce electric power. The NRC conducts license 17 renewal reviews for plants whose owners wish to 18 operate them beyond their initial license period. The 19 NRC license renewal reviews address safety issues 20 related to managing the effects of aging and 21 environmental issues related to an additional 20-years 22 of operation. In all aspects of the NRC's regulation, 23 the Agency's mission is threefold: to ensure adequate 24 protection of public health and safety; to promote 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 11 common defense and security; and to protect the 1 environment.
2 Am I out of sync? Sorry about that.
3 We're here today to discuss the potential 4 site-specific impacts of license renewal for Seabrook 5 Station. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement, 6 which is referred to as the GEIS -- examines the 7 possible environmental impacts that could occur as a 8 result of renewing licenses of individual nuclear 9 power plants under 10 CFR Part 54. The GEIS, to the 10 extent possible, establishes the bounds and 11 significance of these potential impacts. The analyses 12 in the GEIS encompass all operating light-water 13 reactors. For each type of environmental impact, the 14 GEIS attempts to establish generic findings covering 15 as many power plants as possible.
16 For some environmental issues, the GEIS 17 found that a generic evaluation was not sufficient and 18 that a plant specific analysis was required. The 19 site-specific findings for Seabrook are contained in 20 the Draft SEIS, which was published on August 1st of 21 this year. This document contains analyses of all the 22 applicable site-specific issues, as well as a review 23 of issues covered by the GEIS to determine whether the 24 conclusions in the GEIS are valid for Seabrook 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 12 Station. 1 In this process, the NRC staff also 2 reviews the environmental impacts of potential power 3 generation alternatives to license renewal to 4 determine whether the impacts expected from license 5 renewal are unreasonable.
6 For each environmental issue identified, 7 an impact level is assigned. The NRC standard of 8 significance for impacts was established using the 9 White House Council on Environmental Quality 10 terminology for `significant'.
11 The NRC established three levels of 12 significance for potential impacts: Small, Moderate 13 and Large -- as defined here on the slide. For a 14 Small impact -- the effects are not detectable or are 15 so minor that they will neither destabilize nor 16 noticeably alter any important attribute of a 17 resource. For a Moderate impact -- the effects are 18 sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize 19 important attributes of the resource. And for a Large 20 impact -- the effects are clearly noticeable and are 21 sufficient to destabilize important attributes of a 22 resource.
23 This slide lists the site-specific issues 24 the NRC staff reviewed for the continued operation of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 13 Seabrook Station during the proposed license renewal 1 period. As discussed in the previous slide, each 2 issue is assigned a level of environmental impact of 3 Small, Moderate or Large by the environmental 4 reviewers. The staff's preliminary conclusion is that 5 the site-specific impacts related to license renewal 6 for aquatic resources is Small for most species and 7 Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and some kelp 8 species due to the impact of the operation of 9 Seabrook's once-through cooling system.
10 Similarly, for protected species and 11 habitats -- the staff's preliminary conclusion is that 12 the impacts related to license renewal are Small for 13 most species and Large for rainbow smelt -- a species 14 identified by the National Marine Fishery Service as a 15 species of concern. For all other resource areas, the 16 impacts are Small.
17 Now, when reviewing the potential impacts 18 of license renewal on the environment, the NRC staff 19 also looks at the effects on the environment from 20 other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 21 human actions. These effects, referred to as 22 Cumulative Impacts, not only include the operation of 23 Seabrook, but also impacts from activities unrelated 24 to Seabrook -- such as the development of the East 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 14 Coast Greenway, commercial fishing and climate change.
1 Past actions are those related to the resources at 2 the time of the power plant's licensing and 3 construction. Present actions are those related to 4 resources at the time of the current operation of the 5 power plant. Future actions are considered to be 6 those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end 7 of the plant operation, including the period of 8 extended operation.
9 Therefore, the analysis considers 10 potential impacts through the end of the current 11 license renewal term, as well as the 20-year renewal 12 term. While the impact due to direct and indirect 13 impacts of Seabrook on aquatic resources is Small for 14 most species and Large for winter flounder, rainbow 15 smelt and some kelp species -- the Cumulative Impacts, 16 when combined with all other sources -- such as 17 pressure from commercial fishing and effects of 18 climate change -- will be Moderate for most species 19 and Large for winter flounder, rainbow smelt and other 20 species that would be adversely affected by climate 21 change. In the other areas the staff considered --
22 the preliminary conclusion is that the Cumulative 23 Impacts are Small.
24 The National Environmental Policy Act 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 15 mandates that for each Environmental Impact Statement, 1 there needs to be a consideration of alternatives to 2 any proposed major federal action. A major step in 3 determining whether license renewal is reasonable or 4 not is comparing the likely impacts of continued 5 operation of the nuclear power plant with the likely 6 impacts of alternative means of power generation. Any 7 alternative must provide an option that allows for 8 power generation capability beyond the term of the 9 current nuclear power plant operating license to meet 10 future system generating needs. In the Draft 11 Supplement, the NRC staff initially considered (16) 12 different alternatives. After this initial 13 consideration, the staff then chose the three most 14 likely and analyzed these in depth.
15 Finally, the NRC staff considered what 16 would happen if no action is taken and Seabrook 17 Station shuts down at the end of its current license 18 without a specific replacement alternative. This 19 alternative would not provide power generation 20 capacity nor would it meet the needs currently met by 21 Seabrook Station.
22 The NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 23 there is no clear environmentally preferred 24 alternative to license renewal. All alternatives 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 16 capable of meeting the needs currently served by 1 Seabrook Station entail impacts greater than or equal 2 to the proposed action of license renewal.
3 Based on a review of likely environmental 4 impacts from license renewal, as well as potential 5 environmental impacts to alternatives to license 6 renewal -- the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation 7 in the Draft SEIS is that the environmental impacts of 8 license renewal for Seabrook Station are not great 9 enough to deny the option of license renewal.
10 Now, I'd like to emphasize that the 11 Environmental Review is not yet complete. Your 12 comments that you present today -- and all written 13 comments received by the end of the comment period on 14 October 26th -- will be considered by the NRC staff, 15 as we develop the Final SEIS, which we currently plan 16 to issue in March of 2012. Those comments that are 17 within the scope of the Environmental Review and 18 provide new and significant information can help to 19 change the staffs' findings. The Final SEIS will 20 contain the staff's final recommendation on the 21 acceptability of license renewal based on the work 22 we've already performed and any new and significant 23 information we received in the form of comments during 24 the comment period.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 17 Now, as I said in the front of the 1 meeting, I'm the primary contact for the Environmental 2 Review. My colleague, Rick Plasse, is the primary 3 contact for the Safety Review. And our contact 4 information is here and in the slides that are part of 5 the handout. Hard copies of the Draft SEIS are 6 available outside the door there, as are copies on CD-7 ROM. In addition, the Seabrook and Amesbury Public 8 Libraries have agreed to make hard-copies available 9 for your review. You can also find electronic copies 10 of the Draft SEIS along with other information about 11 the Seabrook Station license renewal review online at 12 the Web address on the slide.
13 The NRC staff will address written 14 comments in the same way we address spoken comments 15 received today. You can submit written comments 16 either online or via conventional mail. To submit 17 written comments online, visit the web site --
18 regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-19 0206. If you have written comments this evening, you 20 may give them to any NRC staff member.
21 Now, before we open up the meeting to 22 questions and comments, I wanted to take some time to 23 briefly discuss two topics that are of some interest 24 to people in attendance -- those are the concrete 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 18 degradation at Seabrook and the NRC's response to 1 Fukushima. While these issues are not related to the 2 Seabrook Environmental Review and are therefore not 3 specifically addressed in the Draft SEIS, they are 4 issues that are being actively addressed through 5 relevant Agency processes.
6 Alkali-silica reaction -- referred to as 7 ASR -- is a process that can occur in some forms of 8 concrete that have been exposed to water for long 9 periods of time. ASR can cause expansion and cracking 10 in concrete structures. During the course of the 11 license renewal process, ASR related degradation was 12 found at Seabrook. As discussed during the annual 13 assessment public meeting on June 8th, there are no 14 immediate safety concerns associated with ASR at 15 Seabrook. NRC has found no problems with any 16 electrical system, piping or any other component as a 17 result of ASR and the concrete walls continue to 18 perform within design specifications. The evaluation 19 of ASR and its impacts on license renewal is being 20 addressed as part of the Safety Review.
21 Additionally, the NRC has requested 22 NextEra explain how it intends to manage the effects 23 of aging associated with ASR. The NRC has delayed the 24 license renewal Safety Review until NextEra completes 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 19its evaluation and addresses the staffs' questions.
1 The NRC will not make a decision on license renewal 2 before it fully understands both the issues with ASR 3 affected structures and NextEra's plan to address the 4 issues. 5 Now, since the accident at Fukushima, the 6 NRC has taken multiple steps to ensure the safe 7 operation of nuclear power plants both now and in the 8 future. As part of its initial response to the 9 accident, the NRC issued temporary instructions to our 10 inspectors directing specific inspections at nuclear 11 power plants in order to assess disaster readiness and 12 compliance with current regulations. The next step in 13 the NRC's review was the report of the NRC's Near-Term 14 Task Force. The purpose of the Near-Term Task Force 15 was to develop near-term recommendations and suggest a 16 framework for us to move forward within the longer 17 term. 18 The Near-Term Task Force issued its report 19 on July 12th and discussed the results of their review 20 at a public meeting on July 28th. As a result of its 21 review, the Near-Term Task Force presented (12) over-22 arching recommendations for improvement. These 23 recommendations are applicable to operating reactors 24 regardless of license renewal status. Based on the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 20 results of the Near-Term Task Force, the Commission 1 has directed the NRC staff to evaluate and outline 2 which of the recommendations should be implemented.
3 The staff submitted a paper to the 4 Commission on September 9th, providing the staffs' 5 initial recommendation of which Task Force 6 recommendations can and -- in the staffs' judgment --
7 should be initiated in part or in whole without delay.
8 On October 3, 2011, the staff will submit another 9 Commission paper on its prioritization of (11) of the 10 (12) Task Force recommendations.
11 Recommendation 1 of the Task Force -- the 12 recommendation to reevaluate the NRC's regulatory 13 framework will be evaluated over the next 18-months.
14 To date, the NRC has not identified any issues as part 15 of these activities that calls into question the 16 safety of any nuclear facility. Additionally, the 17 review process is going on independent of license 18 renewal. Any changes that are identified as necessary 19 will be implemented for all licensees regardless of 20 license renewal status.
21 For more information on the NRC's post-22 Fukushima activities -- including the results of the 23 Near-Term Task Force -- you can go to the NRC's web 24 site, the home page and click on the link -- Japan 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 21 nuclear accident NRC actions -- or you can go directly 1 through the web address that's laid out here on the 2 slide. There are also a limited number of copies of 3 the Near-Term Task Force report available outside next 4 to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
5 Additionally, there are question and 6 answer sheets related to Fukushima and Seabrook for 7 those that are interested.
8 Now, before I turn it back over Brian, I 9 did just want to emphasize that we are here today to 10 talk about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
11 We do have a limited number of staff -- but we are not 12 experts on everything. So, if we could limit the 13 comments to the extent practical on the Draft 14 Environmental Impact Statement or the Environmental 15 Review process -- you're probably going to get more 16 robust answers than -- there is a lot more information 17 that can be found online on Fukushima, if that's what 18 your question is.
19 Okay, with that I'm going to conclude my 20 presentation and turn it back over to Brian.
21 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Mike. Like 22 Mike said, before we move to the main purpose of 23 tonight's meeting, which is to hear your comments --
24 we would like to offer a short question-and-answer 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 22 session and what I'll do is if you have a question 1 related to anything that Mike just presented or the 2 review process that the NRC's utilized to perform this 3 Environmental Review -- that's what the NRC staff is 4 prepared to answer questions on. If you could raise 5 your hand, I'll come to you with the microphone. I'll 6 circulate through the room to cover as many people 7 that have questions during the time we have set aside 8 for it. 9 Yes, ma'am. And if you could, please, 10 when I bring you the microphone, just for the record, 11 if you wouldn't mind stating your name, just so that 12 we can keep track of who asked what questions.
13 ILSE ANDREWS: I thank you. My name is 14 Ilse Andrews. I live in Exeter, which is in the 15 evacuation zone. I would like to know how you know 16 that ASR will not accelerate 20-years hence?
17 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Ilse, for that 18 question. Dave --
19 DAVE WRONA: Right now, ASR is being 20 addressed in our Safety Review of the license renewal 21 application. We don't have the information from the 22 applicant on how they're going to be addressing this 23 in performing the aging management of the concrete 24 structures that are affected by ASR. We put our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 23 application review on hold until we get the 1 information from them. When we have the information 2 from them, we can commence with our Safety Review.
3 BRIAN ANDERSON: Can I see just a quick 4 show of hands -- who else had questions? Okay --
5 DOUG BOGEN: I'm Doug Bogen with Seacoast 6 Anti-Pollution League. Again, on the Safety Review --
7 it's kind of a process question -- what factors 8 determine whether you hold a hearing? I understand 9 it's kind of optional whether -- according to the 10 chart that was in some of your materials -- how do you 11 decide whether to hold a Safety hearing or not and 12 would you hold it here?
13 DAVE WRONA: When a license renewal 14 application is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission, we go through an acceptance review to make 16 sure that it has enough information within it that we 17 can begin our technical review. At the point where we 18 find that there's enough information in the 19 application for us to start our review, we docket it 20 on the application and post a Federal Register notice 21 that opens up a period of 60-days for an opportunity 22 for a hearing, which was done when the application was 23 submitted.
24 I'd have to ask Michael or Rick the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 24 specific dates of when we accepted the application and 1 when the initial hearing opportunity closed. Our 2 Regulations on hearings also allow for late filed 3 petitions. I'm not an expert on that. We have a copy 4 of our Regulations out there and I can show you in 10 5 CFR Part 2, if you're interested. I know we have 6 information on our web site and even some staff that 7 you can reach out to to find out some information on 8 hearings and petitions and how to get into that 9 process. 10 DOUG BOGEN: If I could follow-up. I 11 guess I really don't want to read through all your 12 Regulations -- they're not the most exciting reading.
13 But I guess we just want to know whether we might 14 have an opportunity -- particularly concerning the ARS 15 [sic] issue that you brought up. You thought it was 16 important enough to mention it tonight. Seems like 17 that alone would be important enough to hold a hearing 18 here, not down in Washington or somewhere on the 19 Safety Review because obviously a lot of people here 20 have questions that are about Safety as much as about 21 the Environment.
22 I would just say, obviously, we'll see 23 when you get to that point. But, it seems like it 24 would be good of you to notify the concerned people 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 25 here -- not just that we have to go read it in the 1 Federal Register. That we ought to be informed of the 2 opportunity to request such a hearing and I just want 3 to pass that along and hope you will do that.
4 BRIAN ANDERSON: Doug, would it be okay if 5 the NRC staff followed-up with you after this meeting 6 -- give you a little more background on that hearing 7 process and late filed petitions.
8 DOUG BOGEN: You have my sentiment about 9 it. I just, obviously, I think many people here would 10 like to know if we have any say in this.
11 DIANE SCRENCI: There were a number of 12 contentions that were submitted on this license 13 renewal application. So, there is an Atomic Safety 14 and Licensing Board panel that's been established and 15 at this point we're moving forward in the hearing 16 process. An actual hearing, which is normally held in 17 the vicinity of the plant, wouldn't be conducted until 18 both the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the 19 Safety Evaluation has been completed.
20 In addition to the Federal Register 21 notice, there were press releases and news stories 22 that talked about the opportunity for the hearing.
23 BRIAN ANDERSON: And just for the record -
24 - Diane Screnci was providing those most recent 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 26 comments.
1 PAUL GUNTER: Thank you. My name's Paul 2 Gunter and I'm with Beyond Nuclear. We are one of the 3 interveners in the licensing renewal proceeding on 4 this application. My question speaks to the issue 5 that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement largely 6 reviews the Environmental Report prepared by the 7 applicant. I'm wondering -- given that there've 8 already been hearings in this intervention -- if the 9 staff in its preparation of this Draft Environmental 10 Impact Statement has reviewed not just the 11 Environmental Report by the applicant, but the 12 documentation that's been submitted in the 13 intervention to date. That we now have contentions 14 accepted by the Licensing Board. The interveners have 15 been given standing in the proceeding and when you 16 look at the Environmental Report and then read the 17 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it appears that 18 the NRC has basically done a carbon copy of the 19 Environmental Report -- and specific, looking at the 20 Alternatives.
21 I'm just wondering how much actual 22 independent review of a whole host of documentation in 23 supplement to the applicant's documentation -- how 24 much of that did you actually review in preparing your 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 27 DEIS? 1 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Paul. And I 2 believe I understand that the question is -- for 3 contentions that have been admitted on a review and 4 supplemental information that's been provided --
5 PAUL GUNTER: Yeah.
6 BRIAN ANDERSON: How does the NRC staff 7 consider that information in its review process? Do I 8 have that right?
9 PAUL GUNTER: I'll try to be more 10 succinct. Did you look at documentation in 11 preparation of your DEIS that was submitted during the 12 hearings to date before an Atomic Licensing Board?
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you.
14 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I can answer that by --
15 I'd say we don't wholesale rely on the Environmental 16 Report. We do look for other relevant information --
17 either provided during the scoping process, where we 18 did receive input and things that we did take a look 19 at. 20 We also look at other agency studies that 21 have been done. One that I can talk to specifically 22 was the Environmental Protection Agency's case study 23 that they did.
24 THOMAS SAPORITO: [indiscernible] I can't 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 28 hear you.
1 [after a brief pause as adjustments were 2 made to the telephone set-up]
3 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Anyway, as I was saying, 4 we did look at the Environmental Protection Agency's 5 case study that they did as part of their --
6 specifically on Seabrook -- as part of their 316(b) 7 Phase-II rulemaking. We used that in preparation of 8 it. So, we do look at what information that is 9 presented to us and try to determine whether or not it 10 is -- like we said before -- new and significant or 11 different than what we've done before. But I can't 12 say that we've taken everything that we've gotten --
13 PAUL GUNTER: Well, let me just --
14 BRIAN ANDERSON: Paul -- hold on just a 15 second. Let me bring a microphone to you to make sure 16 we get everything captured on the record.
17 PAUL GUNTER: I want to be really clear on 18 this. The Agency has been presented with a volume of 19 documentation that speaks directly to this application 20 and the inadequacy of its Environmental Report --
21 particularly with regard to the Alternatives. All I 22 want to know is -- did you review the documents that 23 were submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing 24 Board in preparation of your Draft Environmental 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 29 Impact Statement?
1 MICHAEL WENTZEL: It was. It was provided 2 to the environmental reviewer's for their review and -
3 - 4 PAUL GUNTER: And so you reviewed it?
5 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Yeah. Absolutely.
6 PAUL GUNTER: You reviewed the 7 documentation that's been presented to the Atomic 8 Safety and Licensing Board to date.
9 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I cannot say we've 10 reviewed everything that's been presented to the 11 Licensing Board to date. I cannot make that 12 statement, but I know -- particularly with the initial 13 round of contentions that were submitted -- yes, we 14 did look at the information that was presented. And 15 we also -- related to Alternatives -- we also looked 16 for other studies, like I said, with other government 17 agencies. We did look at various FERC studies and 18 cited that in our --
19 THOMAS SAPORITO: I hate to interrupt 20 again, but this is Thomas Saporito. I need to have 21 the NRC repeat their responses to whether or not they 22 reviewed the submittal by the interveners -- the 23 submittal that was sent to the Atomic Safety and 24 Licensing Board before the NRC made its Environmental 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 30 Report. 1 BRIAN ANDERSON: And Mike, the answer to 2 that question is -- yes, that information was 3 reviewed. Is that correct?
4 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Right. For the initial 5 round of contentions --
6 PAUL GUNTER: You didn't review 7 everything.
8 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I know. I'm going to 9 clarify that. I said for the initial round of 10 contentions, we did review the information that was 11 presented. I cannot say that we've looked at -- I or 12 the environmental reviewers specifically -- have 13 looked at, in-depth, at everything that has been 14 submitted to date -- is actually what I said.
15 BRIAN ANDERSON: Did those on the phone --
16 were they able to hear the restatement of the answer?
17 That the NRC environmental review staff --
18 THOMAS SAPORITO: Yes, thank you very 19 much. Yes -- yes, thank you very much.
20 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Sir, I'm going to 21 come to a question over here and I'll come back to you 22 -- okay? 23 DEBBIE GRINNELL: This concern that I'm 24 going to raise was raised --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 31 BRIAN ANDERSON: I'm sorry -- would you 1 mind, for the record --
2 DEBBIE GRINNELL: Debbie Grinnell --
3 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you.
4 DEBBIE GRINNELL: -- I live in West 5 Newbury, Mass. Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear, raised 6 this scheduling concern that many of us have and I do 7 know that the seismic vulnerability -- the individual 8 report from the plants -- is a two-year process. It 9 was submitted to the plants on September 1st of 2011, 10 which means that they have until September 1, 2013 --
11 except the Final SEIS is scheduled for March of 2012.
12 Now, I also know that the in-depth 13 assessment and determination if there's any structural 14 integrity issues at four safety related foundations 15 concerning the ASR concrete -- that the plant has had 16 to delay their testing and core results. I don't 17 think we're expecting them until March. I think it 18 was pending until March of 2011. So, how could you 19 possibly assert that you're going to have a Final 20 Draft of the SEIS when you have two major unknowns in 21 the Environmental Impact review?
22 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I can answer that. The 23 Draft letter that you're referring to -- that's being 24 handled for all licensees. Again, that's being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 32handled generically for all operators. I can also 1 tell you that for the Draft SEIS for the Seabrook 2 license renewal application -- where that's handled is 3 in the Severe Accident and Mitigation Alternatives.
4 It's not, per se -- it's handled as part of the Severe 5 Accident and Mitigation alternatives. And it's 6 actually the reason that the Environmental Impact 7 Statement -- the Draft SEIS -- was delayed from its 8 initial scheduling date because we had multiple rounds 9 of RAIs with the applicant asking them to assess these 10 new hazard curves and their impact on the Severe 11 Accident and Mitigation -- also known as SAMA --
12 Analysis.
13 ROBIN WILLITS: My name is Robin Willits 14 and I'm a citizen of Exeter, which is within the 15 impact evacuation area. I'm interested in your 16 process tonight. I think inviting people to make 17 comments and that is something that I respect very 18 much and appreciate. I am concerned on this count --
19 this is a very small audience. I think it's good we 20 have people like SAPL -- who have more technical 21 knowledge than somebody like me -- who could raise 22 those good questions. But my question to you is --
23 how important is it to you that the general public 24 know about this meeting and get them to come to this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 33 meeting and have a chance to give some kind of 1 educated comment? How important is it and what 2 specific steps did you take to help ensure the general 3 public would be represented here more than I think it 4 is now here? Such as: giving out some documents of 5 your summary of what we heard tonight -- very briefly 6 and very fast; giving it to the public for some chance 7 to digest beforehand; announcing it in the newspapers 8 or other ways to inform and get the public here to 9 give some comments. I'd like to know that about your 10 process and ask what your desire is and what steps you 11 took? 12 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for that 13 question. Mike -- can you speak a little bit to the 14 details that go into planning these meetings and how 15 the public is made aware of the NRC process?
16 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I can. This meeting --
17 when we first issued the Draft SEIS, we put notice in 18 the Federal Register announcing that fact. I know 19 that that's not necessarily everybody's first go-to 20 every day. So that was our initial announcement of 21 the availability of the document and that we're going 22 to have this meeting. We've also advertised in two of 23 the local papers. We did three -- I'm sorry, I was 24 distracted by the monitors -- (2) of the local papers, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 34 we did three different advertisements leading up to 1 this meeting. There's also been multiple rounds of 2 press releases that the NRC has issued.
3 When we first initially issued the 4 document and then about two or three-weeks ago, we did 5 another round of press releases to inform the public.
6 We also, about three-weeks ago, put out posters in 7 the area advertising that meeting. So, public 8 involvement in this process is crucial. That's the 9 whole basis behind the National Environmental Policy 10 Act is to get people involved in the process for the 11 federal government. So, to answer that question --
12 public involvement is very important in that.
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. I think we 14 have time for one, maybe two more questions before we 15 take comments.
16 PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL: This is a follow-up 17 question to the previous one. When you say -- a 18 couple of newspapers -- what were those newspapers?
19 What newspapers were they?
20 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I have it written down.
21 I'm not familiar with it. I believe it was the 22 Seacoast Online -- it was advertised -- I've seen it 23 there. 24 Do you have a contact sheet?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 35 Here we go -- it was the Daily News, 1 Newburyport News and the Hampton Union. And then the 2 Daily News -- that was advertised on September 9th, 3 12th and 14th --
4 PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL: I don't read --
5 excuse me -- but I don't read those newspapers. I 6 live in Exeter. There is an Exeter Newsletter that's 7 published twice a week and there is the Portsmouth 8 Herald that's published that covers the seacoast and 9 that's within the region that will be affected. I 10 would have no way of knowing this. Your publication 11 is not wide enough. I wouldn't know that.
12 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Okay. I apologize for 13 that. I do know that the story was picked up in the 14 Boston Globe -- to what effect that has on it. So it 15 was fairly widely circulated.
16 PHYLLIS KILLAM-ABELL: If you want --
17 really want people to know -- you blanket the 18 seacoast. You blanket the northern part, particularly 19 of Boston. You really let people know. That's not an 20 effective publicity campaign at all.
21 MICHAEL WENTZEL: Okay. Well, thank you 22 for your comments. I think that we'll take that back.
23 BRIAN ANDERSON: That is an important 24 comment for the NRC staff to consider -- the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 36 distribution of newspaper advertising and the local 1 news. Thank you for that comment.
2 One last question before we move into the 3 comment period. Hi --
4 WILLOW MAUCK: Yeah, well, there was a 5 follow-up on that question too because I think -- I 6 was curious as to -- he said what their desire was --
7 how much you wanted to actually get the word out about 8 this thing? And I don't think that that was actually 9 answered in the question. So, I was curious.
10 BRIAN ANDERSON: I think that part of the 11 answer was that -- public participation is an 12 important part of the NRC's review process. I believe 13 that Mike said that. Was there something more 14 specific that you were looking for as a follow-up to 15 that? 16 WILLOW MAUCK: So, that is it. So, it's 17 the SeacoastOnline and those papers. Like she said 18 aren't really very effective press to release to 19 actually have the public know about it. So, it seems 20 that maybe there it is not much desire there on the 21 NRC's behalf to have the public know. So, I was 22 wondering how much it really does mean to the NRC for 23 the public to know about something like this?
24 MICHAEL WENTZEL: I don't know how else to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 37answer that question. I mean, it is important. I 1 mean, obviously, we didn't cover every publication 2 that we probably could have. But, it wasn't that we 3 were avoiding the public input. Like I said, we did 4 issue a couple rounds of press releases that did get 5 picked up in newspapers that we didn't specifically 6 take out ads in. So, the story was fairly widely 7 available.
8 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you both for those 9 questions. The NRC staff will take that as a serious 10 comment for consideration just for future process.
11 It's important for the NRC to make sure that they're 12 aware of how the circulation of news in the local 13 community works and how that can possibly be improved 14 in their routine process.
15 ROBIN WILLITS: If you get a trained 16 marketing person that knows the way to get an idea 17 across. 18 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for that 19 comment. For those who didn't hear -- the suggestion 20 was to utilize trained marketing expertise, who might 21 better know the various avenues to disseminate 22 information in the local community. Thank you again 23 for that.
24 Thank you all for your questions and we're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 38 now at the most important part of the meeting agenda -
1 - and that is to hear your comments. For those that 2 might have come in late -- if you wish to provide 3 comments on the record tonight, please register with a 4 yellow card out in the lobby. That serves just as a 5 sequence order, so that I can keep track of who has 6 made comments and who is still yet to speak. No one's 7 required to make comments, but if you wish to make 8 comments here -- to be on the record tonight -- please 9 fill out a yellow card and I'll make sure that you get 10 your chance to speak.
11 As a quick reminder, before we get into 12 the comment period -- there are a lot of people that 13 want to talk tonight and I want to make sure that 14 everybody has an equal opportunity to participate.
15 When providing your comments, please speak into a 16 microphone. Please try and keep your comments concise 17 and within a five-minute time limit. This is not your 18 only opportunity to provide comments and making 19 comments here tonight is not the only way to have the 20 NRC take your comments for consideration.
21 The first speaker will be Chris Nord 22 followed by Mary Lampert. What I'd like to ask is 23 that speakers just come forward to the center podium 24 and I'll provide the microphone --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 39 CHRIS NORD: Actually, hang on to it. Let 1 me open up my notebook. Thank you.
2 Well, my first comment is for the NRC to 3 say that -- I think that it's plain that the NRC has a 4 public relations problem and maybe most of all in the 5 area around Seabrook. If you -- as staff members of 6 the NRC -- are interested in helping that process 7 along, it might help to convince the general public 8 that you do actually care about the general public 9 coming to meetings like this, if in fact the comments 10 that were made and documents that were submitted to 11 NRC actually got reviewed in time to be a part of 12 reporting and so that comments such as my own and 13 other peoples' that are coming forward somehow do get 14 incorporated into your hearing process. I understand 15 that's a possibly difficult task, but that is in fact 16 the task that you are charged with. If you're 17 interested in having the general public up here to 18 make comments, I think the general public would like 19 to see our comments being made a part of this process.
20 In the spirit that that may in fact take place, I'm 21 going to forge ahead by attempting to talk a little 22 bit here about tritium.
23 Just as one example of many radionuclides 24 that the general public remains at risk of being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 40 exposed to within the ingestion pathway -- that is 1 within 50-miles of any reactor -- here or in Japan or 2 anywhere that reactors operate in the world. The 3 reason that I focus on tritium I hope to make obvious, 4 but my first strong suggestion to NRC is that the 5 owners of Seabrook should be required by NRC to show 6 proof positive that leakages and emissions of nuclear 7 radionuclides, such as tritium, have been prevented 8 entirely into the atmosphere, into the air, into 9 groundwater -- in keeping with conclusions drawn from 10 the National Academies of Science BEIR VII Report --
11 that is the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 12 that was released a couple of years ago -- that a 13 conclusion from that study can be made that there is 14 no threshold below which radiation is safe. And if 15 NRC were actually to enact their regulations based on 16 the National Academies' findings, that should mean 17 that nuclear plants -- atomic plants like Seabrook --
18 should not be emitting radionuclides.
19 Now, I'm focusing on tritium for good 20 reason. There was a study conducted in the state of 21 Massachusetts a number of years ago that focused on 22 the Deerfield River Valley and was eventually signed-23 you off on by the State officials within the state 24 Department of Public Health for the state of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 41 Massachusetts that showed statistical significance for 1 things like certain cancers and Down's Syndrome in the 2 Deerfield River Valley -- which was close to the 3 Yankee Rowe plant before it closed. Apparently, those 4 findings of cancer were eventually linked to exposures 5 in the Deerfield River Valley to tritium.
6 I have in my possession a report that was 7 done by a group out in western Mass. -- the Citizens 8 Awareness Network -- that was involved in creating 9 that study that talks about three very important 10 effects of tritium -- it's carcinogenic, it's 11 mutagenic, and it's teratogenic. Teratogenic meaning 12 that it is possible that exposure to tritium will 13 cause genetic defects down the line. The other two, I 14 think, are self-explanatory.
15 The reason I'm bringing up tritium in 16 relation to Seabrook in particular -- it could be 17 Cesium-137, it could be Strontium-90 -- but here, word 18 has come down to me that the owners of Seabrook have 19 been boring test wells over the last -- in the recent 20 past -- apparently looking for traces of tritium. I 21 don't know whether the wells have been dug deeply 22 enough -- I don't know anything about the wells -- and 23 I don't know what's been found. I think that it 24 should be part of the public record to know if tritium 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 42is actually leaking from the reactor at Seabrook.
1 But, God save the people that are close to that 2 nuclear reactor if tritium gets in the groundwater and 3 travels. I think that the NRC should be holding, not 4 only Seabrook, but all reactors to account for their 5 releases of tritium.
6 And I'll say, finally, in relation to 7 tritium -- that it does us on planet earth no good if 8 we're using nuclear power as a way to bridge our 9 energy toward a carbon-free future, if by doing so 10 we've taken on this Faustian bargain of irradiating 11 the earth in the process.
12 The next thing I wanted to say is -- why 13 does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not require 14 independent monitoring of radiation that allows 15 reactor community residents and first responders --
16 not only here, but all over the United States -- to 17 know the real-time direction, location and intensity 18 of radioactive plumes in the event of a radiological 19 event. 20 If that had been put in place 15-years ago 21 for reactors around the country -- such as Seabrook --
22 and the NRC was actually looking at that information 23 as a part of its evaluation of relicensing -- then the 24 NRC would have some strong data on which to base the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 43actual safety of this plant. But, without that 1 information -- what do you really have for data as far 2 as the health and safety of the local environment, if 3 you don't actually know what radiation is being 4 emitted? So, that should be done not only here, but 5 that should be done all over the world.
6 I want to point out for those of you that 7 don't know that there's one group in this area -- the 8 C-10 Research and Education Foundation out of 9 Newburyport, Massachusetts -- that at this time has 10 the model independent monitoring system in the entire 11 United States and we have actually had visitors from 12 Fukushima come to C-10 because people all over the 13 world have suddenly become interested in how to 14 properly monitor for radiation.
15 My last two-items have to do with hardened 16 on-site storage of spent fuel. You should be 17 requiring hardened on-site storage as a prerequisite 18 for relicensing. I'm also curious to know -- and I 19 could just leave this as an open question -- if 20 there's any consideration being given to the potential 21 for inundation of coastal floodplains over the next 22 25-years? If you're considering relicensing at this 23 time, then you have to be considering inundation in 24 relation to global warming. Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 44 BRIAN ANDERSON: Chris -- thank you for 1 those comments. I'll check one more time. I believe 2 that Mary Lampert is not here in the room -- so the 3 next speaker would be Paul Gunter and after Paul --
4 Representative Peter Schmidt.
5 PAUL GUNTER: Thank you. My name is Paul 6 Gunter and I'm director of reactor oversight at Beyond 7 Nuclear out of Tacoma Park, Maryland. We are one of 8 the interveners in the Seabrook relicensing 9 proceeding. As I mentioned earlier, we've already had 10 a preliminary hearing before an Atomic Safety and 11 Licensing Board. Specifically, our contention has to 12 deal with the environmental alternative and the 13 requirement of the National Environment Policy Act for 14 Seabrook to consider the environmental alternatives 15 and the NRC to incorporate that in its decision for 16 licensing renewal.
17 When I read the Draft Environmental Impact 18 Statement, I note that within 54-lines the NRC is able 19 to dismiss the alternative of wind power in the region 20 of interest. What this says to me is that the Agency 21 -- particularly the staff in its review -- did not 22 look at the documentation that was presented to -- in 23 a persuasive argument to even your own Atomic Safety 24 and Licensing Board -- enough for you to incorporate a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 45 whole host of documentation, which I'm going to 1 briefly go through here, as long as my time permits.
2 But it seems apparent that these concerns are falling 3 upon deaf ears with regard to the Agency's 4 consideration.
5 Within 54-lines, basically you say that --
6 the wind energy alternative is intermittent and not 7 feasible in terms of baseload power -- and that -- its 8 availability, its accessibility and its consistency is 9 not of a standard for addressing the environmental 10 impacts that are forced upon us by the continued 11 operation of the Seabrook plant.
12 In fact, what this does -- the statement 13 of fact -- as your Draft Environmental Impact 14 Statement reads -- basically takes a page out of the 15 Environmental Report of the applicant in that your 16 perspective is a review of the alternative at this 17 time. I think that that's disingenuous when we're 18 talking about not issuing a relicense application 19 tomorrow or even 10-years from now, but 20-years from 20 now -- approximately -- we're talking about this time 21 frame. 22 In fact, what it does is serve to 23 obfuscate a whole host of expert documentation, 24 Memorandums Of Understanding and basically -- as we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 46 have contended, as your Draft Environmental Impact 1 Statement reinforces -- that the NRC is not following 2 the requirements under the National Environment Impact 3 Statement [sic] that you must honestly acknowledge and 4 be sufficiently complete in your review.
5 Let me just read a couple of these as time 6 would permit me. When you talk about that it's not a 7 reliable baseload power source -- what you do is that 8 you've ignored Exhibit Number-4 in our intervention, 9 which is entitled --
Supplying Baseload Power and 10 Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnected 11 Wind Farms -- from the Journal of Applied Meteorology 12 and Climatology, which was prepared by Stanford 13 University. This scientific manuscript concludes --
14 contrary to common knowledge -- an average of 33% and 15 a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from 16 interconnected wind farms can be used as reliable 17 baseload electrical power. Equally significant --
18 interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point 19 and then connecting that point to a faraway city can 20 allow for the long-distance portion of transmission 21 capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only 22 1.6% loss of energy. Nowhere in your evaluation do 23 you acknowledge the expert opinion that already in 24 this day and age -- the baseload promise, the baseload 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 47 capacity is in fact clearly feasible.
1 There are an increasing number of news 2 accounts and current events that reveal that there is 3 in fact this building of momentum for baseload power.
4 For example, you do not mention in your Environmental 5 Impact Statement that Google Corporation has already 6 invested $5 billion of its money to lay the first 7 vertebrae of a backbone of offshore wind transmission 8 from Virginia to Maine. So, your dismissal of this 9 power source as a baseload power for the license 10 period of 2030-2050 -- I think, again, it demonstrates 11 a disingenuous approach to looking at the 12 environmental impact issue.
13 A few more examples here. The potential 14 here is just tremendous. There are now (9) European 15 North Sea countries -- Germany, France, Belgium, 16 Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Great Britain and the 17 Netherlands -- that have announced an investment of 18 $40 billion in an offshore, undersea, energy super-19 smart grid, which basically is dedicated to the 20 transmission of renewable energy. This investment and 21 development supports a model for the United States, 22 which your own Draft Environmental Impact Statement 23 ignores. I mean, we can go on.
24 The University of Delaware and Stony Brook 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 48 University study -- they did a study that says that 1 based on a five-year wind data from (11) 2 meteorological stations distributed over a 2,500 km 3 extent along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard -- power output 4 for each hour of the site is calculated and in short 5 that -- there is evidence that the wind blows all the 6 time somewhere and if interconnected along a 7 transmission line you have a demonstrated baseload.
8 But since I'm about to be cut short here, 9 I just want to also note that what you've ignored are 10 Memorandums Of Understanding, bids that are now going 11 on with the state of Maine. By 2030 -- so by the time 12 you're talking about this license renewal to take 13 effect in this federal action that you're looking at -
14 - the state of Maine is looking at having 5 gigawatts 15 of wind in the offshore waters -- 10 to 50-miles out 16 into the Gulf of Maine. That's the equivalent of (5) 17 Seabrooks. And again, there's no mention of this in 18 your Environmental Impact Statement review.
19 I don't think that that's an honest 20 evaluation. I think that what it does is it does not 21 build public confidence that this Agency is doing 22 nothing more than just promoting this industry.
23 That's not your job, particularly when we now know 24 that Seabrook -- what it forces upon us are these 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 49 environmental consequences that require emergency 1 planning zones -- out to 50-miles -- enhanced security 2 because of the environmental threat that putting these 3 reactors in our communities is all about and the 4 alternatives clearly don't represent that level of 5 threat. And you've ignored this.
6 BRIAN ANDERSON: Paul -- thank you for 7 those comments. Representative Schmidt and then we'll 8 hear from Paul Blanch.
9 REP.PETER SCHMIDT: Thank you. I'm Peter 10 Schmidt. I represent Dover, Wards 1 and 2. I am not 11 a scientist -- and not even to say a nuclear scientist 12 -- and I don't speak as a scientist, but rather as a 13 policymaker. I've been in the legislature now for 14 nearly 9-years and I was 3-years as a Dover City 15 Council before that, so what I am in the business of 16 is judgment with regard to policy.
17 I would have to say that just -- before I 18 begin my more pertinent remarks -- that what Paul has 19 just referred to, but also the questions with regard 20 to contacting the public -- demonstrate either a 21 somewhat willful disregard of some of the facts, which 22 one could possibly attribute to somewhat of a silo-23 type of thinking -- you're focused on your specific 24 bailiwick and not looking in the wider thing --
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 50 perhaps disregarding the information which Paul eluded 1 to. 2 But with regard to trying to get the 3 public to be informed -- the bottom line here is if 4 you asked virtually any resident of the seacoast, 5 certainly the elected representatives, with regard to 6 contacting the public in this area -- I think they 7 would've said that some of the publications you 8 referenced would be useful, but by no means sufficient 9 -- ads in the Union Leader, Portsmouth Herald, the 10 Dover Foster's Daily Democrat and other more widely 11 circulated papers would certainly have gotten you a 12 lot more feedback from a much wider area, which is 13 perhaps not within the evacuation zone, but would 14 definitely be impacted by the relicensing of Seabrook.
15 I don't try to address the scientific 16 aspects of this issue. I'd like to look at the larger 17 picture because the fact of the matter is -- my 18 greatest concern is not the possibility of terrorism 19 or environmental disaster -- I think those are all 20 much more on your mind and possibly more predictable.
21 But, if I mention such things as Fukushima or Three-22 Mile Island or Chernobyl, or the Titanic disaster, for 23 that matter -- I don't do so in order to create an 24 alarmist sentiment, but rather because they 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 51 demonstrate the fallibility of human design concepts, 1 but also the unpredictability of future events.
2 And certainly, just in the last 10-years, 3 we've seen Fukushima, we've seen the Twin-Towers and 4 September 11th. And those things demonstrate that 5 we're not very good at predicting the future. That 6 there are all types of things that are happening and 7 one of the concerns that we certainly have is global 8 warming. Seabrook is very close to the ocean, 9 obviously. I'm wondering -- we read recently, for 10 example, that several nuclear power plants along the 11 Missouri River were essentially isolated and may have 12 experienced some flooding -- we're very concerned in 13 this area what that type of thing might generate.
14 My primary concern here is that we are 15 engaged in the relicensing process way too far in the 16 future. I just cannot believe that it is appropriate 17 to relicense Seabrook at this time when the current 18 license is not even remotely ready to expire. What do 19 we really know about what the situation is going to 20 be. Some of the aspects have eluded to -- the 21 possibility of degradation of the plant's 22 infrastructure -- but all these other aspects, which 23 I've just very briefly touched on -- suggest to me 24 that this is -- a relicensing of Seabrook at this time 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 52-- is incredibly premature given all the things that 1 we absolutely know are potential problems: a terrorist 2 act, the storage aspect, the sea level rise and those 3 types of things. Those are the types of things that 4 we already have some knowledge of even if we can't 5 predict exactly how they will manifest themselves over 6 the next 10 to 20-years. But, certainly, the idea of 7 committing this region to this ongoing operation of 8 this plant -- when we're not even close to the 9 expiration of the current license -- strikes me as 10 very, very concerning.
11 So, that is my gravest concern -- that we 12 are jumping off the bridge or jumping off the ship 13 before it's even beginning to founder. And committing 14 ourselves to a situation that I think is questionable, 15 if not unwise. And I'll leave it at that. You get 16 the message, but to the degree that you're engaged in 17 either an active promotion of the nuclear industry, 18 regardless of all of the facts and regardless of 19 whether the public is in support of that, or whether 20 there are real alternatives -- and I have seen the 21 presentation that Paul alluded to in his remarks with 22 regard to the potential for offshore wind.
23 This is not some pie in the sky -- this 24 process is already very far along and it's making 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 53rapid progress. Jumping onto the Seabrook life-raft 1 at this particular point, I think is, as I say, 2 extremely questionable. I hope that you will exercise 3 your authority to weigh the alternatives and the 4 question of -- when it is appropriate to relicense.
5 And I think the time is not yet now. Thank you.
6 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for those 7 comments. The next speaker is Paul Blanch -- is Mr.
8 Blanch in the room? Is there anyone else named Paul 9 that registered to speak? Okay. The next speaker is 10 Thomas Saporito -- who I believe is on the phone. Mr.
11 Saporito -- can you hear me?
12 THOMAS SAPORITO: Yeah. Can you hear me?
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: I can hear you. I'm 14 going to try and place a microphone near the 15 speakerphone to see if that'll better allow everyone 16 else in the room to hear you. When you're ready to 17 make your comments -- it's your time.
18 THOMAS SAPORITO: Can you hear me now?
19 Can the court reporter hear me?
20 BRIAN ANDERSON: Yes, he can. You are on 21 the record.
22 THOMAS SAPORITO: Okay. First of all, my 23 name is Thomas Saporito. I am the senior consultant 24 with Sapordani Associates and we're located in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 54Jupiter, Florida. I have (4) points that I want to 1 address to the NRC with respect to this relicensing 2 issue. 3 However, before I get into that, I just 4 want to follow-up on the prior speaker's comments on 5 the NRC being premature in their endeavor to relicense 6 this nuclear plant so far in advance.
7 It's my perspective, after monitoring the 8 NRC for some 25-years, that the NRC is involved in a 9 process of rubberstamping these 20-year license 10 extensions to nuclear power plants that were only 11 originally licensed to operate safely for 40-years.
12 The NRC is aggressively rubberstamping these licenses 13 because there are Senators and Congressmen who are 14 actively trying to put a moratorium on relicensing 15 nuclear power plants. So, now there is a race between 16 Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with 17 respect to this issue. So, that's the heart of it all 18 right there. It's not the fact that the NRC's trying 19 to protect public health and safety in this instance.
20 In this instance, the NRC is in a footrace trying to 21 rubberstamp these licenses without due process.
22 With respect to this specific plant and 23 the relicensing issue here -- the NRC appears to have 24 failed in its Environmental Review to consider the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 55 brittleness of the metal that comprises the reactor 1 vessel. The Associated Press recently did a year-long 2 investigation of the NRC and found the NRC to be 3 complacent and found that these nuclear power plants 4 were only licensed to safely operate for 40-years.
5 The Associated Press investigation confirmed that the 6 Agency is rubberstamping these license extensions at 7 the peril of public health and safety.
8 So, I would encourage and request that the 9 NRC require the licensee -- NextEra Energy -- to do 10 destructive testing analysis of the metal which 11 comprises the nuclear reactor vessel, to ascertain the 12 exact degree of imbrittelment that may currently exist 13 in that reactor vessel. Because if that reactor 14 vessel cracks from the neutrons that are bombarding it 15 -- you're going to have a loss of coolant accident 16 that you could not recover from and you'd be melting 17 down, just like the reactors in Japan. Once you do 18 that analysis, then you can prorate that and see if 19 that reactor vessel's going to crack if the license is 20 extended 20-years beyond its 40-year license.
21 The next issue would be the alternatives.
22 The NRC's Environmental Review and report is a joke 23 on the alternatives. First of all, if the NRC would 24 simply -- in their review -- have considered 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 56 installation of on-demand electric water heaters for 1 all the customers of NextEra Energy, you would reduce 2 the grid's electrical load demand by 50 to 70% with 3 the installation of just that one appliance. If you 4 add solar systems to the customers of NextEra Energy -
5 - you would have a zero footprint. You would actually 6 -- those customers would actually be putting power 7 into the grid and you wouldn't even need Seabrook.
8 You would have surplus power with those two 9 initiatives. You wouldn't need Seabrook to operate at 10 all. 11 And that's required. Those analyses are 12 required by the Agency to be part of their 13 Environmental Report. I don't see it in there. And 14 these are realistic, real-time -- if you go to our web 15 site saporito-associates.com -- there's a hyphen 16 between those two words -- you will see the evidence 17 where those systems are already in place for many 18 years -- they're not something new. This has been 19 going on for years.
20 The next issue would be earthquakes. The 21 NRC Environmental Report should have required the 22 licensee to do a new seismic evaluation of the 23 Seabrook facility. Just as recent as August the 23rd 24 of this year, the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 57 experienced a seismic event outside its design basis.
1 Okay? Outside its design basis. So, the NRC granted 2 North Anna a license and had an earthquake event 3 happen outside its design basis. Who's to say that 4 there's not going to be a seismic event that's going 5 to be outside the design basis of the Seabrook plant?
6 That's something that's supposed to be in the NRC's 7 Environmental Report and I don't think it's 8 sufficiently in there -- if it's in there at all.
9 The final item I want to address to the 10 NRC is with respect to the environmental consequences 11 of the NRC's action allowing this nuclear plant to 12 operate for 20 more years. It's going to adversely 13 affect the environment because it's going to introduce 14 millions and millions of BTUs worth of heat that would 15 not otherwise be introduced into the environment 16 because the reactor -- the fuel in the nuclear reactor 17 core has to continuously be cooled by water and that 18 heat is dumped into the environment. If that nuclear 19 plant wasn't operating for 20 more years, you wouldn't 20 have 20 more years of heat being dumped into the 21 environment that wasn't there before. That all 22 contributes to global warming. Okay? You may have a 23 near zero carbon footprint with nuclear power 24 production, but you damn sure have a lot of heat being 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 58 unnecessarily put into the environment.
1 So, these issues I would hope and urge the 2 NRC to take seriously and to incorporate them into 3 their Environmental Report and I would hope that the 4 interveners in the current licensing proceeding are 5 addressing these issues, as well. Thank you very 6 much. 7 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for those 8 comments. Thank you for joining us by phone and thank 9 you for your comments. The next speaker is Ben 10 Clichester -- did I say that even close to right?
11 After Ben -- Randall Kezar.
12 BEN CHICHESTER: Chichester.
13 BRIAN ANDERSON: Chichester -- Ben 14 Chichester.
15 BEN CHICHESTER: Good evening staff of the 16 NRC. We know that this meaning is a farce coming in 17 here because we've been through this with you guys 18 plenty of times before. We know it's a feel-good 19 thing and a technicality for you to have to go through 20 this public hearing.
21 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Please 22 speak into the mic.
23 BEN CHICHESTER: This is a public hearing, 24 but it is a farce and we know that coming in here.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 59 It's a farce I say because if it wasn't a farce then 1 we wouldn't be having to address so many ridiculous 2 considerations that you are pretending are something 3 that is manageable and real. I can mention a few, but 4 one of the things that comes to mind is the Evacuation 5 Calendar that is sent out to us on a regular basis.
6 It tells us where to go if there's a nuclear problem.
7 But, everybody knows that you don't go where the wind 8 is blowing and there's no accounting for that in the 9 Evacuation Calendar.
10 Initially, we were told we were going to 11 not have a power plant if you couldn't have an 12 evacuation plan that was workable. But then we were 13 told that it was enough just to have an evacuation 14 plan -- it didn't have to work. That's one example of 15 the kind of farcical nature of this meeting.
16 There are too many things that you are not 17 considering. We live in a world where the health of 18 our economy and the very functioning of an economy is 19 at risk from day to day from total breakdown. Where 20 is the money going to come to pay for and who is going 21 to be in charge of paying for the costly work of 22 maintaining and protecting the citizens from spent 23 fuel pools? Who's going to pay when the seawater 24 rises from global warming and we have popping sounds 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 60with explosive plumes coming from Seabrook? Who's 1 going to pay? Where's that money coming from?
2 We've already heard testimony here that 3 several plants were perilously close to flooding out 4 West and there is no assurance that this is not going 5 to happen here. But you can come into our town and 6 tell us that there is no safety impact 20 to 40-years 7 down the road from this plant. All this period of 8 time that you are proposing to extend this license --
9 the waste will be building up in and on the site.
10 That's a new uncharted territory because I don't 11 believe you know how to take care of that much waste 12 in one spot. You've never done it.
13 I think that there's an inherent collusion 14 between the industry and the NRC. I've heard that the 15 NRC gets most of its funding from the industry. This 16 may or may not be true.
17 PAUL GUNTER: 90%.
18 BEN CHICHESTER: How can you say that 19 we're going to be safe from terrorist attacks on the 20 plant either from foreign or domestic sources? The 21 Price Anderson Act says that the industry doesn't have 22 to pay very much in the event of a catastrophic 23 accident, but our government really can't afford to 24 pay for it either. So, it seems like we're going to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 61 be stuck there.
1 You're only thinking about 20-years at a 2 time, but we should be thinking like the Native 3 Americans think -- which would be more like seven-4 generations ahead. 20-years is sort of a selfish way 5 of looking at what we're doing with these nuclear 6 plants. We should be looking down the road so that we 7 can ensure life on this planet will go on for a long 8 time. 9 We have companies like Westinghouse and 10 General Electric -- we're told that they bring good 11 things to life. You boys are here and you're the 12 functioning arm of these corporations -- the 13 rubberstampers -- that allow this pollution to be 14 created. We are tired of the corporations -- the 15 mafia -- the corporate nuclear mafia -- controlling 16 our lives here on the seacoast with your nuclear 17 plants forced on us above and beyond our local votes.
18 I know we're supposed to be here debating 19 whether or not it's going to be more prudent to have a 20 nuclear plant as opposed to some other form of energy, 21 but I can just tell you that the nuclear plants are 22 highly energy intensive to make them and to run them.
23 So, there's a lot of carbon involved in that process 24 -- global warming will increase. But the alternatives 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 62 and the renewables -- which we've already heard 1 testimony -- are coming really fast and you can't tell 2 me today that they can't take the place of this 3 nuclear power plant 20-years down the line. And here 4 you are 20-years ahead of time looking for extended 5 license for your corporations that are making the 6 money. 7 Have you ever heard of an internal 8 emitter? That's a little piece of plutonium or 9 strontium that comes from these plants that can make 10 its way into the food chain and all it takes is a 11 little speck of it to be ingested to get cancer. So, 12 you're making tons of this product that nobody has an 13 answer for it. And it's happening all over the planet 14 really -- we've got to stop. We've got to stop making 15 nuclear waste because the waste has turned into 16 nuclear bombs and it's a dirty process from the mining 17 of the uranium, all the way through. It's the same 18 corporations that give us nuclear power that gives us 19 nuclear weapons. And it was all given to us secretly.
20 And then we were told it was great by little 21 documentaries they teach to school children. So, we 22 know what we're doing here tonight. And we know who 23 we are up against. I would just hope that we can get 24 real and see what we're doing -- see what we're doing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 63to this planet. And try to do things better. And try 1 to be truthful about what's going on. Thank you.
2 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Ben. Next 3 speaker is Randall -- is that Kezar?
4 RANDALL KEZAR: I'll submit a written 5 [indiscernible].
6 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. So, Randall, I 7 understand that you don't want to speak tonight, but 8 you're going to provide written comments at a later 9 time? 10 RANDALL: Yes.
11 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. The 12 next speaker is Robin Willits and after Robin -- Ilse 13 Andrews. 14 ROBIN WILLITS: I will be very brief. I 15 just want to add to what's been said. I have never 16 heard who benefits from continuing the plant another 17 20-years. Is there any public benefit? And I think I 18 can think of reasons that there might be benefits to 19 the corporation, but I want to know why the NRC is 20 supporting extension without defining what is the 21 benefit to the public.
22 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Robin. Ilse -
23 - 24 ILSE ANDREWS: Thank you. Good evening.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 64I've lived a long life. Very early in my life I spent 1 years in air-raid shelters in Europe. Life does not 2 become much more dangerous. When I drive past 3 Seabrook, I consider it nothing more than an ominous 4 presence. I see nothing friendly or beneficial about 5 it. And I cannot understand why there is an effort to 6 prolong it, when we have viable and -- if there's such 7 a word as -- provable alternatives.
8 I'm standing here only because of my 9 concern for future generations. It makes my hair 10 stand on end when I read the phrase -- unavoidable 11 adverse impacts with regard to Seabrook emissions.
12 And on the slides this evening, there was a remark 13 that said -- the NRC's response to Fukushima, among 14 other things -- is that here there is no imminent risk 15 to public health and safety. Imminent means right 16 now, not 20-years or 21-years hence.
17 All of what I'm saying leads to a sort of 18 rhetorical question -- if current NRC regulations 19 permit such unavoidable adverse impacts and on the 20 other hand you are admittedly responsible for 21 protecting our health and safety, then I would like to 22 ask you -- what are you doing to change these 23 regulations? Thank you.
24 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, Ilse. The 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 65 next speaker is Herbert Moyer and after Herbert --
1 Marcia Bowen.
2 HERBERT MOYER: Thank you. Herb Moyer --
3 I live in Exeter. I'm a teacher. I was teaching at 4 Winnacunnet when the plant first came online and we 5 teachers were told we had to stay with students to 6 evacuate through bus transportation in case of an 7 accident. Of course, we now know the drivers of the 8 buses have subsequently said they would not show up.
9 So, I don't know really what plans the utility has 10 actually made for evacuation in the case, admittedly -
11 - unlikely, but possible. I'm not sure you all admit 12 that it's possible there's a major accident at 13 Seabrook that would happen and students would have to 14 leave the area in some manner in order to avoid 15 significant exposure.
16 But my question is and my comment is that 17 in 2049 -- what kind of changes to the transportation 18 network might we have encountered or done or clogged-19 up highways or increased in numbers of housing, so 20 that we might not be able to realistically get people 21 out of an area -- in the case of a crowded summer day 22 at Hampton Beach? So, I'm wondering -- are you taking 23 into account the increased construction, population 24 increase and whether or not roadways would be able to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 66 capably handle evacuation if an accident were to occur 1 in 2049 -- a year before the projected end of this 2 theoretical license extension? So, that's what I'd 3 like to know.
4 I also would like to know -- it's probably 5 not germane to the relicensing but -- Chernobyl cost 6 the Soviet Union $360 billion. Fukushima has cost 7 $200 billion. The Price Anderson Act puts the 8 utilities on the hook for $12 billion right now in 9 some sort of an escrow account. And we the taxpayers 10 would be liable for any damages to property, land, 11 animals, farms, properties, etc., beyond that. So I'd 12 like to know where that $12 billion resides now and is 13 that even something one could count on if some sort of 14 accident occurs -- serious accident? Thank you.
15 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for those 16 comments.
17 The next speaker is Marcia Bowen --
18 MARCIA BOWEN: I'm going to decline my 19 opportunity to speak tonight.
20 BRIAN ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you, Marcia.
21 And the last speaker that I have here is Doug Bogen.
22 DOUG BOGEN: If you don't mind, I want to 23 wait until they find a new battery for the camera 24 there. 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 67 My name's Doug Bogen. I'm Executive 1 Director of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League based 2 in Exeter, New Hampshire. I would like to make some 3 kind of general comments and have a few specific ones, 4 as well, about the Draft report. I will try to make 5 different comments than what I made in the earlier 6 session this afternoon, but I think they're no less 7 pertinent and important.
8 As others have suggested tonight, the 9 world has changed since Fukushima. Just as it changed 10 after Three-Mile Island. Just as after Chernobyl.
11 Yet, everything I read in this Environmental Statement 12 seems to indicate that it's business as usual at the 13 NRC. I don't see any change of perspective. I don't 14 see any greater consideration of the public interest.
15 As we've heard from others, this just seems to be 16 business as usual. It's the same old story. Same 17 dismissal of alternatives -- they don't seem to have 18 learned anything.
19 I should mention, for the record, we are 20 one of the interveners along with Beyond Nuclear, New 21 Hampshire Sierra Club and other groups. Our 22 intervention is based on the National Environmental 23 Policy Act, but we don't get the sense that the 24 writers of this report have picked up anything from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 68what we've submitted. Even though these are many peer 1 reviewed studies, on-the-ground actual projects -- but 2 they don't seem to find their way into the report.
3 The facts are that you have zero actual 4 experience with commercial reactors older than 42-5 years old. I looked it up. I don't think there's one 6 in this country that's older. In fact, in the whole 7 world, I don't believe there are any reactors that 8 made it to 50-years. So, you have no experience with 9 real-world impacts on the environment past that age.
10 What we do know is that younger reactors have leaked 11 huge quantities of tritium into the groundwater --
12 Seabrook among them. Seabrook was only nine-years old 13 when it started leaking tritium back in `99. For 12-14 years now, they've been pumping the groundwater.
15 Pumping out the leaking water just to put it out into 16 the ocean to dilute it. That doesn't sound like a 17 solution. That sounds like pump and dilute and just 18 pushing the issue further offshore.
19 Younger reactors -- including Seabrook --
20 have had chronic problems with the emergency diesel 21 generators. This has certainly been seen as a greater 22 concern after Fukushima and what happened with theirs 23 and the need to be able to respond to difficult 24 situations -- natural disasters, unnatural disasters.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 69 Younger reactors have had critical safety structures 1 corroded almost to the point of failure.
2 This was recently covered in an AP series 3 and it ran in the local papers here, as well as around 4 the country. Younger reactors have ended their useful 5 lives prior to reaching 40-years old and there have 6 been, I think, at least two-dozen reactors around the 7 country that didn't make it to 40, but everyone of 8 them are still storing their spent fuel on-site in 9 vulnerable areas. Just in our neighborhood, we've got 10 Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Haddam 11 Neck -- that are all just waiting for some day that 12 fuel is going to be put somewhere else. This is the 13 record. This is the legacy that we leave to future 14 generations. This is what you have as real-life 15 experience.
16 Another point -- just looking at the power 17 needs. There keeps being this reference to the need 18 for power -- I want to know where it's written that we 19 will always need 1,250 megawatts on the New Hampshire 20 seacoast, when it isn't even used on the New Hampshire 21 seacoast or even in New Hampshire at all. We have 22 more than enough energy -- more than enough electrical 23 power in New Hampshire, even without Seabrook. I 24 don't think that corporation was given an unlimited 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 70life -- perpetual power generation -- permission. We 1 need to stop thinking that once they build it, it'll 2 always be there.
3 In your comments tonight and in the report 4 itself -- page 8-42, you say that -- assuming that a 5 need currently exists for the power -- but we're not 6 talking about current need, we're talking about need 7 decades into the future -- 20, 30, 40-years. So, what 8 does current power use have to do with it? It just 9 seems like we're just sort of saying -- Well, this is 10 the way it is today and this is the way it's going to 11 be 30-years from now. That just doesn't make any 12 sense. It doesn't pass the laugh test. I would 13 suggest that you at least amend that to say --
14 assuming that a need will exist in 2030. That would 15 be at least a little bit more accurate, a little more 16 appropriate to the report. That should be the issue 17 here. 18 I'll say a little bit about tritium. I 19 did talk about it earlier tonight, but first off I 20 want to say it's in a few different sections in the 21 report. It's kind of hard to find out where all the 22 tritium information is. I understand that you're 23 referring to it as a kind of a new issue. Although, 24 again, it's been ongoing for at least a dozen years.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 71 One of the sections that talks about the other de-1 watering doesn't mention this new de-watering -- the 2 32,000 gallons per day -- in the Unit 2 foundation.
3 What is the total amount and why is this 4 considered acceptable? Do you expect it's going to 5 continue? Is it going to increase? Where are we at 6 with the water there? Why can't they stop the leaks?
7 That sounds like an awful lot of water to be putting 8 out into the ocean. I understand that the EPA 9 regulation allows 20,000 picocuries per liter of 10 tritium in drinking water -- or that's the limit --
11 but that doesn't mean that something under that is 12 perfectly safe. In fact, many other countries have 13 much stricter standards.
14 My understanding is the state of 15 California and the state of Colorado -- that would be 16 completely unacceptable. They've set standards more I 17 think around 500 or 400 picocuries per liter. You 18 state in one part of the document that the levels of 19 tritium in seawater were under 3,000 picocuries per 20 liter. I understand in salt water you can't test as 21 low as you can in freshwater, but if they're at 2,999 22 that again does not make it safe. That's still 23 somewhere in 100 times greater than background levels 24 for tritium. Natural occurring tritium is in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 72 single digits -- maybe up to double digits.
1 So, even the EPA standard -- we're talking 2 1000 times more than the ambient levels in our 3 environment. That just doesn't make sense. It 4 doesn't sound safe to me. We all know now that there 5 are no safe levels of radiation and I don't know how 6 you can continue this idea that that's an acceptable 7 level, when many other countries much of the science 8 shows that's not enough.
9 So, I want to move on to some of the 10 carbon emissions. I talked a bit about this earlier, 11 but I did want to point out, as well, that again as 12 Mr. Gunter emphasized -- it doesn't seem like you 13 picked up much from the materials that we submitted in 14 our intervention petition. The cited studies that you 15 list comparing carbon emissions from nuclear versus 16 carbon from other renewable energy sources -- just 17 about everyone of those studies appears to be from the 18 International Atomic Energy Association, which we all 19 know has the double-purpose of both promoting and 20 regulating nuclear power. So, I would suggest it 21 might be a little bit biased.
22 Why aren't there more independent studies?
23 One in particular that we referred to in our petition 24 from a researcher named Sovacool in 2008 -- that was a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 73broad survey of previous existing studies. He 1 concluded that nuclear power emits seven times more 2 carbon dioxide than wind for a new plant. I believe 3 it's five times more for an existing plant. Indeed, 4 in your own information regarding Seabrook, you 5 mentioned an average over five-years -- 24,000 tons of 6 carbon dioxide equivalent released just on-site.
7 That's not including the fuel, the transportation, 8 construction and so forth. That's just on-site each 9 year. 10 Just to put that in perspective, which 11 would be helpful in your report -- that's about 10% of 12 the carbon emissions of one of the Schiller boilers --
13 the 15-megawatt boiler -- the Schiller Plant being in 14 Portsmouth, New Hampshire -- just up the road. It's 15 the equivalent -- the plant owners love to say how 16 many homes they can provide power to with their plant 17 -- well, the carbon emissions from Seabrook alone on-18 site are the equivalent of the carbon emissions from 19 over 3,000 homes -- just from their power use -- or 20 4,000 homes for their overall carbon footprints. I 21 think that's pretty significant. I think people would 22 be surprised to know that -- that Seabrook, in 23 particular, is not carbon-free, as is the whole 24 industry. So, we'd like to see a little bit better 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 74 treatment of the relative impacts and of course that 1 influences your whole decision about which types of 2 power sources would be most environmentally sound.
3 We really have concern with the comparison 4 you make with the one you do look at -- the combined 5 cycle gas and wind power combined versus nuclear. I'm 6 just mystified why you chose to look at -- you 7 mentioned the idea of having five wind farms. Four of 8 which would be on land and one of which offshore.
9 Well, everything you've heard from other speakers 10 tonight and again in our petition shows that offshore 11 is the future. We don't need to be building as many 12 farms onshore. I understand that's where Florida 13 Power and Light -- the parent company of NextEra --
14 that's where they get their wind, where they're used 15 to using it.
16 But that doesn't mean that's going to be 17 the future. It just seems like an unfair comparison 18 and not really representative of future development.
19 So, I wonder whether you're just setting it up to 20 fail? That seems to be the way you present this. You 21 say that's the only potentially viable project, but 22 then you don't look at what would be the most 23 attractive -- the most environmentally sound approach 24 to that development. So, I would, if you can, I would 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 75 like you to reconsider that choice -- take another 1 look at those comparisons.
2 I just have a few more points -- just 3 again talking about groundwater -- not so much the 4 tritium issue, but just the increases, particularly 5 under climate. I talked earlier about the sea level 6 impacts on the site. Clearly with the existing 7 infiltration of the foundations leading to the ASR 8 problem -- there ought to be some projection. I know 9 you make reference to some hydrological studies, but 10 it seems like again it deserves more than a sentence 11 or two about future infiltration. I think that's 12 something we all want to know about. That's an 13 environmental impact on the plant. Even though I know 14 it's supposed to be addressed in other reports.
15 So, again, I think all of these things are 16 worth consideration and I do hope that you will make 17 some changes in the final version of your report.
18 Thank you very much for your time.
19 BRIAN ANDERSON: Thank you, sir, for your 20 comments. Was there anybody that signed up to speak 21 tonight that I might have missed? I believe that 22 everybody that registered to speak has had a chance to 23 speak. Did I miss anybody?
24 Okay -- good. Thank you all again -- not 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.
C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 76 just for providing your comments, but for taking time 1 out of your personal lives to come be at this meeting 2 to listen to the NRC staff and to share your thoughts 3 and provide your comments on the NRC's review. I 4 personally appreciate you taking the time to be here 5 and providing your comments. On behalf of the NRC 6 staff -- thank you for taking the time to be here.
7 If you have any other questions or would 8 like to have any further discussion with NRC staff --
9 they will be available after this meeting. Like I 10 said earlier, this is not the only opportunity to 11 provide comments. The comment period remains open 12 through October 26th. There's opportunity to provide 13 written comments electronically or in the mail. So, 14 with that --thank you all again for your time and 15 please travel safely tonight. Have a great night.
16 This meeting's adjourned. Thank you.
17 (Whereupon, at 8:53 p.m., the public 18 meeting was closed.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25