ML022320682
| ML022320682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2002 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Wheeler LL, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1444 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML022310317 | List: |
| References | |
| NRC-491 | |
| Download: ML022320682 (75) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 2 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS CORRECTED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL - EVENING SESSION DELTA, PENNSYLVANIA WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2002
.1 I;
.4 I,
I ii I;
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Peach Bottom Power Station, Units 2 & 3 License Renewal - Evening Session Docket Number:
Location:
Date:
Work Order No.:
(not applicable)
Delta, Pennsylvania Wednesday, July 31, 2002 NRC-491 Pages 1-75 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
1 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 PEACH BOTTOM POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 4
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8
+ + + + +
9 Wednesday, i0 July 31, 2002 11 12 The meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. at the 13 Peach Bottom
- Inn, 6085 Delta
- Road, Delta, 14 Pennsylvania, Chip Cameron, Facilitator, presiding.
15 PRESENT:
16 CHIP CAMERON, FACILITATOR 17 JOHN TAPPERT 18 RAJ ANAND 19 DUKE WHEELER 20 BRUCE MCDOWELL 21 BOB PALLA 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
2 1
A-G-E-N-D-A 2
Page 3
Welcome -
Facilitator Cameron 3
4 John Tappert 11 5
Overview of license renewal process 6
Raj Anand 13 7
Overview of Environmental review process 8
Duke Wheeler 19 9
Results of Environmental Review 10 Bruce McDowell 23 11 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 12 Bob Palla 34 13 Public comments 14 Norm Wurzbach 45 15 Sandy Smith 46 16 Ernest Guyll 61 17 Alan Brinson 66 18 Dr. Shirley Liebman 71 19 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 o
3 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(7:00 p.m.)
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Good
- evening, 4
everyone.
I would like to welcome you to the Nuclear 5
Regulatory Commission's public meeting tonight.
6 My name is Chip Cameron, and I'm the 7
special counsel for public liaison at the Nuclear 8
Regulatory Commission, and it is my pleasure to serve 9
as your facilitator for tonight's meeting.
10 The subject of the meeting tonight is the 11 applications by Exelon Generation Corporation to renew 12 operating licenses for units 2 and 3 at the Peach 13 Bottom atomic power station.
14 We were here last November with you to 15 explain what the NRC's license renewal process is, how 16 we do our evaluation, and to get your ideas on what 17 type of information we should consider in preparing 18 the environmental review on the license renewal 19 application.
20 We've done a draft review based on your 21
- comments, and based on other government agency 22
- comments, and we are here to discuss this document 23 with you tonight.
It is a draft environmental impact 24 statement.
25 And our objectives tonight are two-fold.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 1
- One, we want to make sure that we clearly describe to 2
you what the NRC's license renewal process is, and 3
what the findings are in the draft environmental 4
impact statement.
5 And I do want to emphasize the word draft.
6 This statement will not be finalized, and will not be 7
used in the NRC's decision making process on the 8
license renewal applications, until we factor in the 9
public comments that we are going to receive from you 10 tonight, and written comments that we are also asking 11 for.
12 And that is the second objective tonight, 13 is to listen to your concerns, to listen to your 14 comments on the draft environmental impact statement, 15 and on the license renewal process.
16 We are taking written comments, and the 17 NRC staff will be telling you where to submit those 18 comments if you want to submit them, and by what time.
19 But we wanted to be here tonight to talk with you in 20 person about your comments.
21 And let me just emphasize,
- also, that 22 anything you say tonight, any comments we receive 23 tonight will carry the same weight as a written 24 comment.
25 So you may be submitting written comments, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
5 1
but if you don't want to, we are going to keep a 2
record of what you say tonight.
We are taking a 3
transcript of the meeting and so we will consider your 4
comments.
5 In terms of the format for the meeting 6
tonight, basically we are going to have two parts to 7
the meeting, and they match up with the two objectives 8
that I mentioned earlier.
9 The first part of the meeting is to give 10 you some background on the license renewal process, 11 the environmental
- review, and most importantly, 12 describe the preliminary findings in the draft 13 environmental impact statement.
14 So we are going to have a series of brief 15 NRC presentations, for you, and after each of those 16 presentations we are going to go out to you to see if 17 you have any questions for the speaker.
18 So that will be a more interactive part of 19 the meeting.
The second part of the meeting is for us 20 to listen to anybody who wants to make a more formal 21 comment to us.
And we have some yellow sign-up cards 22 up there.
If you do wish to speak tonight, please 23 fill a card out.
It is not a requirement, but it does 24 give us an idea of how many people we have, who do 25 wish to speak.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
6 1
And in a minute I'm going to introduce the 2
NRC staff who will be doing the presentations, and 3
tell you a little bit about what they do, and what 4
their background is.
5 In terms of the ground rules, they are 6
very simple.
One is if during the question, during 7
the presentation, the first part of the meeting, if 8
you have a question just signal me and I will bring 9
you this talking stick, or you can use the floor mike, 10 and please tell us your name and affiliation, if 11 appropriate.
And ask your question and we will try to 12 answer it.
13 A second ground rule is that I would ask 14 that only one person speak at a time.
Not only so 15 that we can have a clean transcript, identify who is 16 speaking, but so that we could give our full attention 17 to whomever has the floor at the time.
18 A third ground rule I would ask you to be 19 concise.
These are complex issues, it is hard to be 20 concise, it is hard to be brief.
But if you could try 21 to do that, then we could achieve an important 22 objective, which is to make sure that everybody gets 23 a chance to talk tonight.
24 And when we get to the second part of the 25
- meeting, the formal
- comments, I'm going to ask NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1
everybody to follow a guideline of five minutes for 2
their presentation.
3 And we don't have one of those chutes that 4
goes out to the sidewalk if you go past five minutes.
5 But just try to keep it to five, and I will give you 6
a little urging when you are, you know, going too far 7
over, so that we can ask you to summarize for us.
8 This is a really important decision that 9
the NRC has to make on whether to renew the licenses 10 for Peach Bottom, and we just really appreciate the 11 fact that you've all come out tonight to talk to us, 12 to help us with that decision.
13 And with that I'm going to introduce the 14 NRC staff who are going to be presenting tonight.
And 15 although this is not really a presentation, I've asked 16 John Tappert, who is right here, from the NRC to give 17 you a brief welcome tonight.
18 John is the section leader of the license 19 renewal and environmental impact branch at the NRC.
20 And John and his
- staff, any license renewal 21 application that comes in, they are the ones who are 22 responsible for supervising the preparation of the 23 environmental review.
And John used to be a resident 24 inspector at nuclear plants here in NRC region 1. He 25 has been with the NRC for approximately 11 years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
8 1
He has a master's degree in environmental engineering, 2
and his bachelor's is in oceanographic and aeronautic 3
engineering.
4 After John gives his welcome, we are going 5
to go to Raj Anand, who is right here.
Raj is the 6
project manager for the safety review of the Peach 7
Bottom license renewal applications.
And he is going 8
to tell you what is involved in that safety review.
9 And Raj is
- with, again, the license 10 renewal and the environmental impact branch.
That is 11 within our office of nuclear reactor regulation back 12 at NRC headquarters.
13 He has been with the NRC for 22 years 14 dealing with system and plant design for nuclear power 15
- plants, and he has a
bachelor's in mechanical 16 engineering, and has taken graduate courses in nuclear 17 science at Catholic University in Washington, D.C.
18 We will go to you for questions about the 19 license renewal process, the safety evaluation, and 20 then we will go to Mr.
Duke Wheeler, who is right 21 here.
22 And Duke is sort of the impresario of this 23 particular meeting, I think, as he is the project 24 manager for the environmental review on the Peach 25 Bottom license renewal application, and that is what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1
we are here, tonight, to specifically address.
2 He is going to give us an overview of the 3
environmental review process.
And Duke, like Raj, has 4
been with the Agency for about 21, 22 years.
He has 5
been involved in licensing work in nuclear power 6
plants, also serving as a project manager for specific 7
operating nuclear power plants.
8 He also has inspection experience with the 9
- NRC, and he is a graduate of the military academy at 10 West Point.
11 When Duke is done we will, again, go out 12 to you to see if there is any questions.
And then we 13 are going to go to the real meat of the meeting 14 tonight, and that is to describe the findings in the 15 draft environmental impact statement.
16 And we have Bruce McDonnell with us 17 tonight to do that.
As Duke will explain, we use a 18 team of experts to help us evaluate the various 19 aspects of the environment, when we do these 20 environmental reviews.
21 And Bruce is the team leader for the 22 environmental review on the Peach Bottom license 23 renewal applications.
He is from Lawrence Livermore 24 National Lab in California, and he is part of the 25 Environmental Protection Department there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
10 1
He has a couple of master's degrees from 2
the University of California, one in economics, one in 3
business.
And he is also going for a
PhD in 4
atmospheric sciences.
5 So he will be presenting that to you, and 6
then we will go out to you for questions.
We are 7
going to have a separate presentation on a specific 8
part of the draft environmental impact statement.
And 9
that is the analysis of severe accident mitigation 10 alternatives.
11 And we have Bob Palla, from the NRC staff, 12 with us who is going to do that.
He is a senior 13 reactor engineer in something called the probabilistic 14 safety assessment branch, again, office of nuclear 15 reactor regulation at NRC headquarters in Washington, 16 D.C.
17 He has been involved for about 21 years 18 with risk analysis of severe accidents at the NRC, and 19 he has a master's degree in mechanical engineering 20 from the University of Maryland.
21 We will come back out to you for 22 questions, and then we will turn it back to Duke to 23 give us some very specific information about when to 24 file comments, where information is available, how to 25 contact him so that if you have questions or concerns NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
11 1
you can call him up.
2 And, again, thank you for being here, and 3
I'm going to ask John to give you a welcome.
4 MR.
TAPPERT:
Thank
- you, Chip, and 5
welcome.
As Chip said, my name is John Tappert, I'm 6
chief of the environmental section in the office of 7
nuclear reactor regulation.
8 And, again I would like to welcome you to 9
this meeting, and thank you for participating in our 10 process.
11 As Chip mentioned, there are several 12 things we would like to accomplish tonight, and I 13 would like to briefly reiterate the purposes of 14 tonight's meeting.
First we would like to give you a 15 brief overview of the entire license renewal process.
16 This includes both a safety review as well 17 as an environmental review, which is the principal 18 focus of today's meeting.
Second we will provide you 19 the preliminary results of our environmental review, 20 which assesses the environmental impacts associated 21 with extending the operating license of the Peach 22 Bottom units for an additional 20 years.
23 Finally we will provide you the schedule 24 for the balance of our review, and also give you 25 information about how you can participate in this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
12 1
process by submitting written comments on our draft 2
environmental impact statement.
3 At the conclusion of the Staff's 4
presentation we will be happy to receive any questions 5
or comments that you may have on our draft 6
environmental impact statement.
7 But first let me provide some context for 8
the license renewal program.
The Atomic Energy Act 9
gives the NRC the authority to issue operating 10 licenses to commercial nuclear power plants for a 11 period of 40 years.
12 For Peach Bottom Units 2
and 3
these 13 operating licenses will expire in 2013 and 2014, 14 respectively.
Our regulations also make provisions 15 for extending these operating licenses for an 16 additional 20 years, as part of the license renewal 17 program, and Exelon has requested license renewal for 18 both of these units.
19 As part of the NRC's review of that 20 license renewal application we conducted an 21 environmental scoping meeting here last November.
At 22 that meeting we provided information on the license 23 renewal process, and also sought your input on issues 24 to be included in the environmental impact statement.
25 As we indicated at the scoping meeting, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1
return now, today, to provide the preliminary results 2
of our review.
- And, again, one of the principal 3
reasons for the meeting today, is to receive your 4
questions and comments on that draft.
5 And with that brief welcome I would like 6
to ask Raj Anand to give a brief overview of the 7
safety portion of the license renewal.
8 MR.
ANAND:
Thank
- you, John.
Good 9
evening, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Raj Anand.
10 I'm the project manager for the safety review of the 11 application for license renewal for Peach Bottom 12
- Atomic Power Station, Unit 2 and 3.
13 The Atomic Energy Act, and the National 14 Environmental Policy Act, provides that the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission is responsible for the public 16 health and safety, protection of the environment, and 17 the common defense and security.
18 It also provides that each power reactor 19 would have a 40 year license term.
But the Atomic 20 Energy Act went on to say that those licenses could be 21 renewed.
The original 40 year license term was based 22 on the antitrust and economic factors, not on the 23 technical limitation of the plant design.
24 License renewal is governed by the 25 requirements of 10CFR Part 54.
This license renewal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1
rule defines the regulatory process by which a nuclear 2
- utility, such as Exelon Generation Company, applies 3
for a renewed operating license.
4 License renewal rule incorporates 10CFR 5
Part 51 by reference.
10 CFR Part 51 provides for the 6
preparation of an environmental impact statement, or 7
EIS.
The license renewal rule process defined in 10 8
CFR Part 54 is very similar to the original licensing 9
process in that it involves safety reviews, and 10 environmental impact evaluation, plant inspections, 11 and review by the Advisory Committee of the Reactor 12 Safeguards, ACRS.
13 The ACRS is a group of scientists and 14 nuclear industry experts, who serves as a consulting 15 body to the Commission.
The ACRS performs an 16 independent review of the license renewal application, 17 and the staff's safety evaluation, and they report 18 their findings, and recommendations directly to the 19 Commission.
20 The next slide illustrates two parallel 21 processes.
You will see one at the top of the slide, 22 the other toward the bottom of the slide.
The two 23 parallel processes are the safety review process, and 24 the environmental review process.
25 These processes are used by the Staff to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1
evaluate two separate aspects of the license renewal 2
application.
The safety review involves the Staff's 3
review of the technical information in the application 4
for renewal to verify, with reasonable assurance, that 5
the plant can continue to operate safely during the 6
extended period of operation.
7 The Staff assesses how Applicant proposes 8
to monitor or manage aging of certain structures, or 9
components, that are within the scope of license 10 renewal.
11 The Staff's review is documented in a
12 safety evaluation report and the safety evaluation 13 report is provided to ACRS for review, and an ACRS 14 report is prepared to document their review of the 15 Staff's finding.
16 The Staff's process also involve two or 17 three inspections which are document in the NRC 18 inspection reports.
These inspection reports are 19 considered with the safety evaluation report, and the 20 ACRS report, in NRC's decision to renew the operating 21 licenses.
22 If there is a Petition to Intervene, 23 sufficient standing can be demonstrated, and an aspect 24 within the scope of the license renewal has been 25 identified, then the hearings may also be involved in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
16 1
the process.
These hearings will play an important 2
role in the NRC's decision on the application, as 3
well.
4 At the bottom of the slides I
another 5
parallel process, the environmental
- review, which 6
involves scoping activities, preparation of the draft 7
supplement to the generic environmental impact 8
statement, solicitation of public comments on the 9
draft supplement, and then the issuance of the final 10 supplement to the generic environmental impact 11 statement.
12 This document also factors into the 13 Agency's decision on this application.
During the 14 safety review the Staff assesses the effectiveness of 15 the existing, or proposed inspection, and maintenance 16 activities to manage aging effects applicable to a 17 defined scope of passive structures and components.
18 Part 54 requires that the application also 19 include evaluation of time limited aging analyses, 20 which are those design analyses that specifically 21 include assumption about plant life, usually 40 years.
22 Current regulations are adequate for 23 addressing active components, such as pumps, valves, 24 which are continuously challenged to reveal failures 25 and degradation, such that corrective actions can be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
17 1
taken.
2 Current regulations also exist to address 3
other aspects of the original
- license, such as 4
- security, and emergency planning.
These current 5
regulations will also apply during the extended period 6
of operation of the plant.
7 Two parallel products from the NRC staff 8
are the safety evaluation
- report, and the 9
environmental impact statement.
Those are taken 10 together with two other pieces.
11 One is an independent review of the safety 12 issues by the Commission's Advisory Committee on 13 Reactor Safeguards.
That is an independent body of 14 experts from the industry and academia, who have the 15 particular expertise on safety issues, and they look 16 at the quality of the Staff's safety findings.
17 There is also an independent inspection 18 program that verifies certain key elements of the 19 Staff's safety findings.
Our decision on this license 20 renewal application will rely on a safety evaluation 21
- report, and environmental impact statement that 22 developed with public participation, an ACRS report, 23 and an independent inspection report.
And those are 24 the four principal products.
25 The schedule for this activity is about a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1
25 month schedule, because for this application we 2
have had no petitions to intervene for a hearing.
Had 3
there been a petition for a hearing submitted and 4
granted, then the schedule would have been 30 months 5
to get through the whole process.
6 I will be available, after the meeting, if 7
there are any questions that you have about the aging 8
management program review, or the specifics of the 9
safety review process, or the contents of the safety 10 evaluation report.
11 Thank you for your attention.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
And thank you, Raj.
13 Raj has just given us an overview of the entire 14 license renewal process but, also, the focus on aging 15 that is done in the safety review.
16 Are there any questions for Raj before we 17 go into the environmental review process?
18 (No response.)
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
- Okay, great.
20
- Thanks, Raj.
And before we go on, I just wanted to 21 tell you there is coffee and iced tea back there.
We 22 won't be taking a break tonight, but please feel free 23 to help yourself to the coffee an iced tea that is 24 back there.
25 And I introduced Bruce as Bruce McDonald, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross corn
19 1
and I hear you are going by Bruce McDowell, now.
So 2
I have been corrected on that, and I apologize.
Since 3
'56?
Okay.
One of those youngsters.
4 Duke Wheeler is going to tell us about the 5
environmental review.
6 MR.
WHEELER:
Good evening.
I'm Duke 7
- Wheeler, I'm the environmental project manager 8
responsible for the development of the draft 9
environmental impact statement for the Peach Bottom 10 license renewal review.
11 My primary responsibility is to coordinate 12 the efforts of the NRC staff, and our National Labs, 13 to develop the environmental impact statement.
14 The National Environmental Policy Act of 15 1969 requires a systematic approach in evaluating the 16 impacts of proposed major federal actions.
17 Consideration is to be given to the impacts of the 18 proposed action and also to mitigation for any 19 significant impacts that are identified.
20 Alternatives, including the no-action 21 alternative to the proposed action, to the proposed 22 are also to be considered.
The National Environmental 23 Policy Act is a disclosure tool and has specific 24 provisions that provide for public participation in 25 our process.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
20 1
Our NRC regulations require that an 2
environmental impact statement for license renewal 3
actions.
We have drafted an environmental impact 4
statement, we have published it for comment.
This 5
meeting tonight is just one means that we are 6
providing you to provide us with your comments on the 7
draft.
8 Our decision standard is, stated simply, 9
are the environmental impacts of the proposed action 10 great enough that maintaining the license renewal 11 option for Peach Bottom units 2 and 3 all of a sudden 12 becomes unreasonable?
13 Please note that we do not decide whether 14 or not the plant will actually operate during the 15 license renewal period.
That decision is made by 16 other regulatory agencies, and the licensee.
17 Regarding the environmental review 18 process, which a few moments ago you saw Raj's slide 19 up there that had an environmental review going along 20 the bottom of the slide, this is just a little bit of 21 an expansion of that line.
22 Exelon submitted their application to us 23 in July of last year.
And in September the NRC 24 published, in the Federal Register Notice, and also 25 publicized a notice of intent to do an environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1
review, develop an environmental impact statement, and 2
conduct scoping.
3 As a part of the scoping process we had a 4
public meeting, here at the Peach Bottom Inn, on 5
November the 7th, to receive comments on particular 6
interests that we might want to be aware of as we are 7
conducting our environmental assessment.
8 In conjunction with that activity, on the 9
next day, on November the 8th, our team of experts 10 performed a site audit, actually went on site, walked 11 the ground, interacted with federal, state, and local 12 officials, licensee representatives, and so forth, to 13 gather additional information to help them in 14 developing the draft of the environmental impact 15 statement.
16 We did have one request for additional 17 information, related to severe accident mitigation 18 alternatives, we issued that request on December the 19 20th of 2001.
And we got our answer back, it gave us 20 the information we needed, and we've now completed the 21 draft.
22 The draft was published toward the end of 23
- June, we now have a public comment period.
It is 24 going to run 75 days, and I will talk later on about 25 what the specific schedule is for the public comment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1
period.
2 Once we receive public comments, give them 3
their proper consideration, we will publish a final 4
environmental impact statement for the license 5
renewal.
6
- Now, you see the term GEIS, that is a
7 generic environmental impact statement for license 8
renewal of nuclear power plants.
And each specific 9
power plant that submits an application, the 10 environmental impact statement for that plant is just 11 basically a supplement to this generic environmental 12 impact statement.
13 For Peach Bottom this will be supplement 14 number 10, supplements 9, 8,
7 and so forth, are for 15 other plants that were earlier in the process.
16 During the development of the draft 17 environmental impact statement, as I noted, we did 18 interact with a lot of people, particularly federal, 19
- state, and local officials, and local service 2G agencies.
21 We also considered the comments that were 22 received during the scoping period.
And on April 19th 23 I issued a scoping summary report.
The portions of 24 that summary report that are applicable to the 25 environmental review are included in the draft NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1
environmental impact statement as appendix A.
2 As I noted, we had a team of experts in 3
various environmental disciplines.
These disciplines 4
include atmospheric sciences, radiation protection, 5
socioeconomics and environmental justice, terrestrial 6
ecology, land use, archeology, and cultural resources, 7
nuclear
- safety, regulatory compliance, aquatic 8
ecology, and hydrology.
9 Now, this concludes my comments, for the 10 moment.
As Chip noted, I will come back a little bit 11 later to give you some additional information on 12 communicating with us.
13 If there are no questions on my comments
'4 to this point, what I would like to do is turn the 15 mike back to Chip Cameron, who will introduce the next 16 speaker.
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Let's see if there 18 is any questions on the environmental review process, 19 generally, before we get into the specifics?
20 (No response.)
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Now we are going to 22 get to Bruce to talk about the findings in the draft 23 environmental impact statement.
Bruce?
21 MR.
MCDOWELL:
Good evening.
As Chip 25
- said, my name is not Bruce McDonald, it is Bruce NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1
McDowell.
I work at the Lawrence Livermore 2
Laboratory, and I'm the task leader for the team that 3
prepared the supplemental EIS for the Peach Bottom 4
Power Plant.
5 I would like to start by describing the 6
analysis approach that we used, to determine whether
/
the impacts associated with the continued operation of 8
Peach Bottom, or the alternatives, are small, moderate 9
or large.
10 The generic environmental impact 11 statement, NUREG
- 1437, which we call the
- GEIS, 12 identifies 92 environmental issues that are evaluated 13 for license renewal.
14 Sixty nine of these issues are considered 15 generic, or category one, which means that the impacts 16 are the same for all reactors, or the same for all 17 reactors with the same features, such as plants that 18 have cooling towers.
19 For the other 23 issues, referred to as 20 category 2, the NRC found that the impacts were not 21 the same at all
- sites, and therefore a site-specific 22 analysis was needed.
23 Only certain issues addressed in the GEIS 24 are applicable to Peach Bottom.
For those generic 25 issues that are applicable to Peach
- Bottom, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1
assessed if there was any new information related to 2
the issue that might change the conclusions in the 3
GEIS, which is the new and significant information on 4
the slide.
5 If there is no new information, then the 6
conclusions of the GEIS are adopted.
If new 7
information is identified, and determined to be 8
significant, then a site-specific analysis would be 9
performed.
10 For the site-specific issues related to 11 Peach Bottom, a site-specific analysis was performed.
12
- And, finally, during the scoping period, the public 13 was invited to provide information on potential new 14 issues, and the team during their review looked to see 15 if there were any new issues that needed evaluation.
16 For each issue identified in the GEIS, an 17 impact level is assigned.
These impact levels are 18 consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality 19 Guidance for NEPA analysis.
20 For a small impact the effect is not 21 detectable, or too small to destabilize, or noticeably 22 alter any important attribute of the resource.
23 For example, the plant may cause the loss 24 of adult and juvenile fish at the intake structure.
25 If the loss of fish is so small that it cannot be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
26 1
detected in relation to the total population of the 2
river, the impact would be small.
3 For a
moderate impact the effect is 4
sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize 5
important attributes of the resource.
Using the fish 6
- example, again, if losses at the intake cause the 7
population to decline, but then stabilize at a lower 8
level, the impact would be moderate.
9
- And, finally, for an impact to be 10 considered large the effect must be clearly noticeable 11 and sufficient to destabilize important attributes of 12 the resource.
13 So if losses at the intake at Peach 14 Bottom, cause the fish population to decline to the 15 point where it cannot stabilize, and continually 16 declines, that impact would be large.
17 In Chapter 2 of the draft supplemental EIS 18 we discuss the plant and the environment around the 19 plant.
In Chapter 4 we then looked at the potential 20 impacts for an additional 20 years of operation at the 21 Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Station.
22 The issues that the team looked at are 23 issues related to the cooling system, the transmission 24 lines, radiological impacts, socioeconomic impacts, 25 groundwater use and
- quality, and threatened and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1
endangered species.
2 I'm going to take a few minutes to discuss 3
the highlights of our analysis.
If you have any 4
questions on anything in particular, feel free to ask.
5 One of the issues we looked at, closely, 6
is the cooling system for the Peach Bottom station.
7 This is the ladder, the cooling
- intake, and the 8
canals.
9 Although there are a number of category 1 10 issues related to the cooling system, and remember 11 that we said that category 1 issues are those that 12 have been determined to have the same significance for 13 all plants, no new and significant information was 14 identified, either during scoping, by the Applicant, 15 or by our staff during the review of the issues.
16 The issues that the team looked at on a 17 site-specific basis include water use conflicts, 18 entrainment, and impingement of fish and shellfish, 19 heat
- shock, and enhancement of microbiological 20 organisms.
21 We found that the potential impacts in 22 these areas were small and additional mitigation 23 measures were not warranted.
24 Radiological impacts are a category 1
25 issue, because it is often a common concern to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1
public I
want to take a minute to describe our 2
analysis.
3 We looked at the effluent release and 4
monitoring program during our site visit.
We looked 5
at how the gaseous and liquid effluents were treated 6
and released, as well as how the solid wastes were 7
treated, packaged, and shipped.
8 We also looked at how the Applicant 9
determines and demonstrates that they are in 10 compliance with the regulations for release of 11 radiological effluents.
12 This slide shows you the near site, or on 13 site location the Applicant monitors for atmospheric 14 releases and direct radiation.
There are a number of 15 other monitoring stations beyond the site
- boundary, 16 including locations where water, milk, fish, and food 17 products are sampled.
18 Our review of the
- releases, and the 19 resulting dose calculations, found that the doses to 20 the maximally exposed individuals in the Peach Bottom 21
- vicinity, were small fractions of the EPA 22 environmental radiation standards.
23 In addition we found no new and 24 significant information relating to this issue.
The 25 releases from the plant and the resulting off-site NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
29 1
potential doses are not expected to increase on a year 2
to year basis, during the 20 year license renewal 3
term.
4 During scoping comments were received with 5
claims of elevated childhood cancer resulting from 6
releases of strontium 90.
And there is significant 7
discussion in the draft environmental impact statement 8
on this issue, in section 4.7.
9 But to summarize the findings in Section 10 4.7, doses to the public from routine Peach Bottom 11 emissions were specifically evaluated in the 1996 12 generic EIS for license renewal, and were found to be 13 within regulatory limits.
14 In-plant monitoring of effluent streams 15 establishes that there have been no significant 16 releases of strontium 90 from the Peach Bottom plant.
17 In addition no causal relationship has been 18 established between levels of strontium 90 reported in 19 deciduous teeth, and childhood cancer.
20 Lastly there is a unanimous consensus, in 21 the scientific community, that current radiation 22 protection standards are protective of public health.
23 Therefore the team concluded that the information 24 provided during the scoping
- period, regarding 25 strontium 90 releases is not new and significant, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does not change the conclusion in the 1996 GEIS, that the radiological impacts are small.
The last issue I would like to discuss from chapter 4 is that of threatened and endangered species.
There are no federally listed aquatic species that
- occur, currently
- occur, within the 0
vicinity of Peach Bottom and the Con/Ywingo pond.
There are a number of terrestrial species listed as threatened or endangered that may occur in the range of the Peach Bottom Power Station and the transmission lines.
The lower Susquehanna river is an important bald eagle area in Pennsylvania, and one of the areas in the state where bald eagles can be observed nesting year round.
There are ten active bald eagle nests near the Conowingo pond, and recent surveys indicate that as many as 10 to 15 eagles over-winter in the vicinity of the Peach Bottom site.
In cold weather eagles have been observed near the discharge canal, which may be the only part of the river that is not frozen.
Bog turtles are known to occur in the vicinity of the transmission line, but a survey performed on the line did not find any suitable areas in the corridor.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
31 1
Peregrine falcons are very rare in the 2
Peach Bottom area, although the area is within their 3
range.
There is a plant species called the swamp 4
pink, could occur in the area, but it was not observed 5
during surveys of the transmission line corridor.
6 The team also looked at the uranium fuel 7
cycle and solid waste management, and decommissioning.
8 All issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste 9
management, as well as decommissioning, are considered 10 category 1.
11 For our analysis we did not find any new 12 or significant information related to these issues, 13 and so we adopted the conclusions in the 1996 GEIS.
14 The team evaluated the potential 15 environmental impacts associated with the Peach Bottom 16 power station not continuing operation.
The team 17 looked at no-action, new generation from coal-fired, 18 gas-fired, and new
- nuclear, purchased
- power, 19 alternative technologies such as wind,
- solar, and 20 hydropower, and then a
combination of these 21 alternatives.
22 For each alternative we looked at, we 23 looked at the same type of issues.
For example, we 24 looked at land use, terrestrial ecology, aquatic 25 ecology, socioeconomics that we looked at during the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
32 1
license renewal term.
2 Our preliminary conclusion for the 3
alternatives, and this includes the no-action 4
alternatives, is that these alternatives may have 5
environmental impacts that at least in some impact 6
categories, reach moderate or large significance.
7 And that is the highlight of our analysis.
8 Now I would like to turn this back over to Chip.
9 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Thanks, Bruce.
That 10 is an overview of the findings in the draft 11 environmental impact statement.
Are there questions 12 for Bruce on this?
13 Yes, sir?
And why don't you come up to 14 the mike, so we can -- well, we have to get it on the 15 transcript.
I know we can hear you without the mike, 16 but we do need to get it on the transcript.
17 And if you could just tell us your name, 18 sir?
19 MR.
GUYLL:
My name is Ernie Guyll.
My 20 question is, what is a new issue?
You referred to new 21 issues, and old issues.
Like what is a new issue that 22 you studied, or what makes something an old issue that 23 you don't respond to?
24 MR.
MCDOWELL:
I'm sorry, I think what I 25 was referring was new and significant information NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
33 1
regarding the issues that were looked at in the 1996 2
generic impact study.
3 MR.
GUYLL:
At your local sampling 4
stations that are around the plant, what is used to 5
monitor the radiation at those sampling stations, what 6
item or device is used?
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
- Mohammed, did you 8
want to talking about what types of equipment are used 9
for monitoring?
If you are the right person, I don't 10 know if I have the right person, or not.
11 MR.
SHANBAKY:
My name is Mohammed 12
- Shanbaky, I'm the branch chief for the inspection 13 program at Peach Bottom.
14 Part of the requirements is an 15 environmental monitoring program that involves 16 sampling air
- samples, direct measurements of 17 radiation, background radiation, and any potential 18 radiation from the plant.
19 The air sampling stations usually are 20 equipped with
- filter, air
- filter, to collect 21 particulate, and also charcoal cartridges for iodine 22 sampling.
23 In addition they have also a
TLD 24 monitoring, direct radiation measurements devices.
25 Thermal luminescent dosimeters.
Essentially it get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
34 1
activated with heat, after you expose it to radiation, 2
and it will give you a dose.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Thank
- you, Mr.
4 Guyll, thanks Mohammed.
Any other questions for Bruce 5
about the draft environmental impact statement?
6 (No response.)
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Okay, well let's 8
thank you Bruce.
Let's go on to a specific portion of 9
the draft environmental impact statement, and this is 10 severe accident mitigation alternatives.
And Bob 11 Palla is going to explain that to us.
12 MR.
PALLA:
Good evening.
My name is Bob 13
- Palla, and I'm with the probabilistic safety 14 assessment branch of NRC.
15 I will be discussing the severe accident 16 mitigation alternative analysis done for Peach Bottom, 17 also referred to as the SAMAs.
18 The license renewal rule requires a
19
- licensee, a license renewal applicant to consider 20 alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the Staff 21 has not previously evaluated SAMAs for that plant.
22 Now, since SAMAs had not been previously 23 assessed for Peach Bottom, they were assessed as part 24 of the environmental review.
The Staff's review of 25 SAMAs is discussed in section 5.2 of the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 1
impact statement supplement for Peach Bottom, and is 2
the subject of my presentation.
3 As background, the purpose of the SAMA 4
evaluation is to ensure that plant changes with the 5
potential to substantially improve severe accident 6
safety performance are identified and evaluated.
7 The potential plant improvements 8
considered include hardware modifications, procedure 9
- changes, training program improvements, changes of 10 that sort.
11 The scope of the SAMAs includes SAMAs that 12 may either prevent core
- damage, which we termed 13 preventive SAMAs, or improve containment performance, 14 given that core damage would occur.
And we term 15 those SAMAs mitigative SAMAs.
16 The SAMA evaluation process consists of a 17 multi-step process, and I'm going to briefly describe 18 the major steps, so that you have a sense as to how 19 this analysis was conducted.
20 The first step is to characterize the 21 overall plant risk and the leading contributors to 22 risk.
This involves extensive use of the plant 23 specific probabilistic risk assessment study, also 24 known as the PRA.
25 The PRA effectively identifies the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
36 1
different combinations of system failures, or human 2
- errors, that would be necessary for an accident to 3
proceed to core damage, or to containment failure.
4 The second step is to identify potential 5
improvements that can further reduce risk.
The 6
information from the PRA, such as dominant accident 7
sequences, is used to help identify potential plant 8
improvements that would have the greatest impact in 9
reducing risk.
10 Improvements identified in other NRC and 11 industry studies are also considered.
This includes 12 the severe accident mitigation design alternative 13 evaluations performed for the Limerick plant, and the 14 Hatch plants, both of which are boiling water reactors 15 similar to the Peach Bottom plant.
16 We also looked at improvements that were 17 identified in PRAs for other plants.
The next step 18 would be to quantify the risk reduction potential and 19 the implementation costs for each improvement.
20 The risk reduction and implementation 21 costs are, typically, estimated in a bounding fashion.
22 The risk reduction is generally overestimated by 23 assuming that the plant improvement is completely 24 effective in eliminating the accident sequences that 25 it is intended to address.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
37 1
And the implementation costs
- are, 2
generally, underestimated by neglecting certain cost 3
factors, such as maintenance costs, and surveillance 4
cost.
In conjunction this leads one to a more 5
conservative assessment, which would tend to include 6
more of the potential SAMAs for further evaluation.
7 The risk reduction and the cost estimates 8
are used in the final step to determine whether 9
implementation of any of the improvements can be 10 justified.
11 And in determining whether an improvement 12 is justified, we looked at three factors.
The first 13 is whether the improvement is cost beneficial.
That 14 is, are the estimated benefits greater than the 15 estimated implementation costs?
16 The second factor is whether the 17 improvement provides a significant reduction in total 18 risk.
For example, does it eliminate a sequence, or 19 a containment failure mode that contributes a large 20 fraction of the plant risk?
21 And the third factor is to look at whether 22 the risk reduction is associated with aging effects 23 during the period of extended operation.
24 The preliminary results of the SAMA 25 evaluation are summarized on this slide.
204 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
38 1
candidate improvements were identified for Peach 2
Bottom based on review of the plant-specific
- PRA, 3
relevant industry and NRC studies on severe accidents, 4
and SAMA analyses performed for other plants.
5 So 174 SAMAs were eliminated during an 6
initial qualitative screening.
The factors considered 7
during this initial screening included whether the 8
SAMA has already been implemented at Peach Bottom, is 9
not applicable to Peach Bottom due to design 10 differences; addresses sequences or failure modes that 11 are not risk significant at Peach Bottom, or has an 12 expected implementation cost that is far in excess of 13 the expected risk reduction benefit.
14 The cost benefit analysis was performed 15 for the remaining 30 SAMAs.
The group of 30 was 16 further reduced to 5
candidate SAMAs based on 17 quantitative comparisons of implementation costs, with 18 a maximum benefit, if all of the risk were eliminated.
19 And plant-specific risk, or operational 20 considerations, were also factored in to this final 21 screening.
A more detailed conceptual design and cost 22 estimate was developed for each of the five remaining 23 SAMAs.
24 None of these five SAMAs were found to be 25 cost beneficial when evaluated in accordance with NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE,, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
39 1
guidance for performing regulatory analyses.
And 2
based on our review of Exelon SAMA analysis, we 3
conclude that none of the SAMAs evaluated are cost 4
beneficial.
5 In conclusion we believe that additional 6
plant improvements to further mitigate severe 7
accidents are not required at Peach Bottom Units 2 and 8
- 3.
9 So if there is any questions on that I can 10 try to address it here.
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
- Thanks, Bob.
12 Anybody have any questions on the severe accident 13 analysis?
I
- mean, it is described in the draft 14 environmental impact statement.
But if there is 15 something that you don't understand about it, please 16 ask, and we will get Bob to explain it.
17 MS.
REITZER:
Could you give us a page 18 where we can find -
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
And the question is 20 the page where the severe accident mitigation -
21 MR.
PALLA:
Well, actually it is on page 22 5-3, section 5.1.2.
Page 5-4, section 5.2 23 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Rebecca, do you have 24 any other questions?
25 (No response.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
40 1
FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Anybody else?
2 (No response.)
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
- Okay, thanks Bob, 4
and let's go to Duke for a sort of summing up on this 5
for us.
Duke Wheeler.
6 MR.
WHEELER:
Then to basically summarize 7
our conclusions, we did determine in our draft 8
environmental impact statement that the impacts of 9
license renewal are small for all the impact areas.
10 And we have further determined, in the 11
- draft, that the impacts of alternatives to license 12 renewal range all the way from small to large.
Our 13 preliminary recommendation in the draft is that any 14 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for 15 Peach Bottom 2 and 3, are not so great that retaining 16 the license renewal option is unreasonable.
17 Now, where to from here?
As I noted in my 18 earlier comments, we published the draft environmental 19 impact statement last
- month, and we have a public 20 comment period which began on July the 5th.
It will 21 run for 75 days.
The last day of the public comment 22 period is September the 17th.
23 Then after we receive the public comments, 24 give them their proper evaluation, make any 25 appropriate revisions to the draft, that we are then NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
41 1
scheduled to issue the final environmental impact 2
statement for the Peach Bottom license renewal in 3
February of next year.
4
- Now, I would like to take a moment and 5
tell you a little bit more how to -- correction, wrong 6
slide.
7 As I was saying, how to communicate with 8
the NRC.
The easiest thing for you to do is just to 9
take my name and phone number.
There is a toll free 10 number on the slide for you, and if you do have 11 interests that perhaps should rightfully be referred 12 to other parts of the NRC organization, I can be the 13 one to identify that particular resource for you, and 14 hook you up with them.
15 So just take my name and number as an NRC 16 point of contact.
To facilitate the availability of 17 the draft environmental impact statement to you, I've 18 placed it in three local public libraries.
19 One is the Collinsville public library up 20 the road in Brogue.
And if you speak with Martha essy 21 Gunder, or-E@.o Day, they will be happy to take you 22 right to it.
They have a couple of copies that are 23 reference copies for the library.
24 I don't have enough that I could just send 25 up boxes for everybody to take theirs home.
- However, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
42 1
if you want a copy of this, since it is a draft of an 2
environmental impact statement, let me know, give me 3
your address, and I will get you one.
4 Similarly, I've placed a few copies for 5
reference purposes in the Quarryville public Library.
6 Catrina Anderson is the director over there, and she 7
will be happy to steer you to where she is keeping it 8
on her shelves.
9 And also just down the road in Whiteford, 10 George Mind, at the Whiteford branch library of the 11 Hartford County library system, will be happy to help 12 you.
13
- Now, the draft environmental impact 14 statement can also be viewed at our website given on 15 the slide, wwXrc.gov.
And there is a specific 16 address, the last line on the slide.
I won't bother 17 to read the whole thing, but it is in your handout.
18 And I've tried it on both Netscape and 19 Internet Explorer, and it really does work.
But if 20 you have trouble, again, you've got my phone number, 21 and we will sit down and we will go through it 22 keystroke by keystroke, if this is the way you would 23 like to have access to the draft environmental impact 24 statement.
25 Other ways that you can communicate with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
43 1
us in addition to giving us your comments at this 2
meeting, you can send your comments in by mail to the 3
chief of our rules and directives branch at the 4
address shown on the slide.
5 Or given the proximity of Peach Bottom to 6
our offices down in Rockville,
- Maryland, it is not 7
unreasonable to think that someone might want to 8
physically come down, and sit down in our office and 9
discuss this.
And you certainly may do that.
10 Our office is located on Rockville Pike, 11 at the address you see.
We are about halfway between 12 the beltway and downtown Rockville, if you are 13 familiar with the D.C. area.
14 You may also provide comments by email.
15 I
opened up a specific NRC email address for the 16 purpose of receiving public comments on the Peach 17 Bottom environmental impact statement, 18 peachbottomeis@nrc.gov.
19 I'm the one who opens that mail, and so it 20 is certainly available to you to give your comments to 21 us via that channel, if you choose to do so.
22 And I mentioned that the environmental 23 impact statement is available online.
If you choose 24 to access it online, when you do that, you will also 25 see a link to a comment form.
And if you wish to make NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
44 1
comments just click on that link, and follow it on 2
through.
3 And, again, if you have any problems give 4
me a call, and we will work through them.
That 5
concludes my prepared remarks.
What I would like to 6
do is to turn the mike back over to Chip, who I think 7
will then open the mike.
Chip?
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
All right.
- Thanks, 9
Duke.
Before we go to hearing from you, is there any 10 I
just wanted to make sure if there is any 11 questions on any of the items that you've heard so far 12 tonight, before we move on?
13 (No response.)
14 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
And the NRC staff, 15 our expert consultants, will be here after the 16 meeting.
So take the opportunity to talk with them if 17 you care to about various issues.
18 We are now going to go to formal comment 19 from all of you, and we have some people signed up who 20 wanted to make comments tonight.
21 And first I would like to ask Mr.
Norm 22 Wurzbach to come up.
Norm?
Come up here if that is 23 comfortable for you, or you can go right here.
Thank 24 you.
25 MR.
WURZBACH:
Norm Wurzbach, I live about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.om
45 1
ten miles north of here, I run a beef farm operation.
2 I appreciate having electric power into my farm, it 3
supplies me with water, at night lights.
I think it 4
is a great benefit.
5 I feel that Peach Bottom probably produces 6
the electricity I use.
I have no problem with it, and 7
I think it should be extended for another 20 years, 8
because it is an attribute to the whole neighborhood, 9
because a lot of people in the area do work at Peach 10 Bottom, also.
11 As long as it keeps our electric rates 12 down I think it is a good move, because it doesn't use 13 fuel oil, it doesn't use gas.
I use these items 14 myself, and I also use coal, which it doesn't use.
15 So I'm not competing.
So it keeps things 16 cheaper, and we are importing too much oil right now, 17 and that would be one of the alternatives, I think, 18 and that is not good.
Thank you.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Thank you very much, y
20 Mr.
Wurzbach.
Next we are going to go to NicV Roth.
21 Is Nici' still here?
22 We will go back to Nick if he or she 23 comes in.
Let's go to Alan Nelson, Nuclear Energy 24 Institute.
Alan?
He is out there too.
Okay.
Sandy 25 Smith?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
46 1
MS.
SMITH:
Did you call me before?
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
No, I didn't.
- And, 3
Sandy, take your time to -- whatever you need to say.
4 MS.
SMITH:
Good evening.
Even the grim 5
reaper needs glasses.
I just realized, earlier
- today, 6
when I
was standing here as the grim reaper, my 7
daughter made this outfit for me really, quick, in 8
about a half an hour.
9 But I was pregnant with her in
'79 almost 10 had the meltdown, minus 30 minutes.
So perhaps this 11 is a very apropos outfit to be wearing to get the 12 message across.
13 Thank you for letting me speak.
Although 14 I'm very angered that this old nuclear plant is even 15 being up for license renewal, the NRC's own standards 16 stated Peach Bottom was supposed to be closed 20 plus 17 years ago.
18 What has changed?
Has anyone from the NRC 19 personally inspected every piece of rusty metal, worn 20 parts, fractured cement.
This is no way that Peach 21 Bottom can operate safely or economically, and should 22 be shut down, according to the Nuclear Regulatory 23 Commission's own figures.
24 When
- death, health, and environmental 25 desolation are added up, Peach Bottom definitely is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
47 1
not cheap.
Who is going to pay in York County, or in 2
the surrounding areas if, perhaps, this corporation 3
goes into bankruptcy down the road?
4 Who has a bond, what kind of insurance do 5
we have with the spent fuel, with everything else?
We 6
don't.
According to the Federal Register notice, each 7
relicensing is expected to be responsible for the 8
release of 14,800 person Rem of radiation during the 9
20 year life extension.
10 This figure includes releases from the 11 nuclear fuel radiation release, spread over the 12 population, and will cause 12 cancer deaths per unit.
13 That would be 24 for Peach Bottom, they have two 14 units.
15 There was a
person who spoke this 16 afternoon that said, is this really worthwhile, if we 17 know for pretty much a fact, that at least 24 people 18 will die in the next 20
- years, because of this 19 radiation?
20 If someone came in right now and shot 24 21
- people, would that be all
- right, would anyone here 22 like to volunteer for it?
I don't think I know of 23 anybody in York County that would like to volunteer 24 for that sort of thing.
25 This figure does not include accidents NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
48 1
that can happen along the way, other casualties.
This 2
is only calculated.
There are not 12 people, there 3
are not 24 people.
4 TMI is also close by.
The NRC has said it 5
expects as many as 100 reactors to apply for 6
relicensing extensions.
This would result, and I had 7
figured it wrong, over 2,000 cancer deaths among the 8
United States population.
9 Pennsylvania has the second highest number 10 of nuclear reactors, with the second highest nuclear 11 waste.
And because of that our government is telling 12 us we should have a nuclear dump.
They are right, we 13 made it, we might as well keep it here.
14 But we shouldn't have to have a nuclear 15 dump.
We don't need to be producing more, it can't 16 all go to Yucca Mountain.
Even if we are for Yucca 17 Mountain it can't go there, because we would still be 18 making too much if we keep relicensing these nuclear 19 facilities.
20 Nuclear power is not an admission free 21 technology.
The entire nuclear fuel
- chain, the 22
- uranium, primary mines on the lands remaining to 23 indigenous people, uranium conversion, enrichment, 24 fuel fabrication, each step exposes workers and 25 communities to radioactivity, and each step generates NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
49 1
radioactive waste.
2 Radio curies defy the concept of disposal, 3
they don't go away, we just move them around.
There 4
is no such thing as a
nuclear dump that won't 5
eventually leak.
6 The NRC acknowledges that the allowable 7
- limit, 100 milli rems a year for radiation exposure 8
via air, from any nuclear reactor, to the general 9
public, will cause a fatal cancer in 1 out of 286 10 people.
11 This is very high when compared to the 12 standard of 1 in one million considered an acceptable 13 level for human sacrifice for another industrial 14 activity.
15 The 1986 catastrophe of Chernobyl has 16 seriously affected the health and welfare of the 0
17 belrussian people.
I know, I was there.
I saw it.
18 I don't want to hear that our nuclear facilities are 19 built different, it won't happen.
20 It almost did happen at TMI, I was there 21 when it almost happened at TMI, too, that morning.
22 But in Byelorussia it
- happened, I
have seen the 23 children, I have seen the children go back and forth 24 to be detoxed in Kiev, and in Israel, and the parents 25 not getting to see their children for maybe as long as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
50 1
six months.
2 Then they come back home again and it is 3
all over again, radiation.
The only thing good is 4
that it sure grows mushrooms big.
But that is it.
5 The land, the everything is very desolate, very sad.
6 The average life expectancy of women has 7
declined by five years, over there.
Only ten percent 8
of the children are completely healthy.
Cancer among 9
adults and children have increased in Ukraine and 0
10 Mold/via, as well.
11 Two-thirds of the Ukraine is contaminated 12 and 70 percent of the food.
The watershed of the Kiev 13 basin has been so contaminated that it would take 200 14 billion dollars to just purify the water, which they 15 don't have.
Forty million people have to drink it, 16 and they do.
17 TMI was 30 minutes from a meltdown.
How 18 much disaster insurance does Peach Bottom carry for 19 York County?
We have a right to know.
They don't 20 carry it.
21 Our tax dollars are paying for some 22 peripheral.
Who is going to pay for the Susquehanna 23 if it is polluted like that?
Where is this money 24 coming from?
I will tell you what is going to happen, 25 they are going to go into bankruptcy, just like all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
51 1
the other corporations, because they can't do it, and 2
we will be stuck possibly with useless land that 3
absolutely no one wants.
4 And then where do we go, where do we live?
5 The NRC has offered to pay the cost of two day's 6
supply of potassium iodine pills for people living 7
within ten miles of a nuclear power plant.
8 Thyroid cancer is a
major result of 9
reactor accidents.
The exposure can continue for 10
- days, even after one leaves the area, it is in your 11
- blood, it continues.
12 If a nuclear accident occurred during a 13 natural disaster, earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, 14 ice
- storms, or an
- attack, evacuation would be 15 difficult, time consuming, and maybe impossible.
16 And people would need at leaSt 10 days to 17 30 days supply.
Even the EPA manual states that these 18 pills should be given within 3 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the 19
- accident, if it is going to do a tremendous amount of 20 good.
21 So that means that even if you have them 22 at home, if your children are at school, or at day 23 care center, those centers have to have them too.
24 They need to be stockpiled there, they need to be 25 stockpiled at work.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
52 1
Soaring rates of thyroid cancer are still 2
appearing in the children over in the former Soviet 3
Union countries, who were exposed to Chernobyl, 4
because they received too little, too late, of iodine.
5 There is no way that this seemingly simple 6
protection could be carried out, even here, in York 7
County or surrounding area.
Why do all of our tax 8
dollars have to go to pay for Peach Bottom, a private 9
company's hazardous operation?
10 In the past three years old and worn out 11 equipment have caused dozens of incidents requiring 12 plants to shut down.
On May and August 2000, Peach 13 Bottom unit 3 was forced into an emergency shutdown 14 when an instrument valve failed and caused a leak of 15 contaminated coolant.
16 The coolants are worse probably than the 17 reactors, as far as the radiation.
The NRC has just 18 estimated that with a spill, within 50 miles, people 19 will be affected.
We know people will be affected.
20 Ten miles is a joke, this is affecting 21 everybody, we must find another way.
We must assesI 22 the nuclear age itself, in the wake of Chernobyl.
23 There are more than 450 reactors in operation on the 24 planet today.
25 Each generates radioactive waste that will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com w
j
53 1
be a threat to human life for hundreds of thousands of 2
years.
Each routinely releases radioactivity into the 3
air and water.
4 Poland was the only country that protected 5
their children with iodine tablets when Chernobyl 6
erupted, and that is not a polish joke.
As far right 7
- now, today, as Scotland they are still feeling the 8
effects of Chernobyl with their sheep, they may not be 9
able to be sold, and a lot of their land.
10 This is serious, it is lasting, it is not 11 something that we can just put a band-aid on.
There 12 is no safe place.
We saw the forest fires from 13 Canada, that is exactly the way the radiation goes, by 14 the air.
15 If nukes are so safe why do we have our 16 phonebooks with evacuation routes?
Why is the 17 industry trying to figure out where to dump this 18 deadly waste?
And why is 46,000 dollars of our hard 19 earned money in York County, being allotted every year 20 for the radiation emergency response?
21 That is why it is so cheap, the nuclear 22 plants don't have to pay for anything, hardly.
We are 23 paying for them.
They are buying these cheap worn out 24 plants that are ready to die, anyway.
They are going 25 to make as much money as they can on them, and go.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
54 1
And that is exactly what is happening, and 2
we are footing the bill for everything.
The NRC, that 3
is us.
Those are our tax dollars, we are paying them, 4
they are paying for the tablets that very few people 5
will get.
6 If most people want
- them, and their 7
protection, we are going to have to pay for them.
We 8
are paying for all these things, and we shouldn't be.
9 The NRC does not close down, if they don't close down 10 Peach Bottom we don't have to worry about the 11 terrorism, because our government is terrorizing us 12 enough by keeping these open.
13 And I hope you all check out the calendar 14 that is out there.
In case of an emergency at Peach 15
- Bottom, and they've got cute little pictures by 16 children that have drawn them, and things to do, going 17 into their basement, and everything.
18 These are little kids' pictures, and that 19 is what that calendar is telling them about.
We've 20 got to grow up, we shouldn't have anything that is 21 going to cause an emergency, that is going to cause an 22 accident on this magnitude.
23 There are plenty of other ways we can make 24
- money, we don't need to make money this way.
We all 25 have a responsibility, if not to ourselves, to our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
55 1
children.
And we don't need to do this to earn money 2
for their education.
3 What good will their education be if they 4
don't have a place to use it?
Thank you, good night.
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Thank you, Sandy.
6 We did hear, this afternoon, and this evening, from 7
Sandy.
But a
statement that was in the draft 8
environmental impact statement about 12 deaths.
And 9
we thought it was important enough to try to at least 10 explain what the --
what that was supposed to mean.
11 And Patricia Milligan, who is a health 12 physicist with the NRC is going to try to give us an 13 explanation on that.
14 MS.
MILLIGAN:
Good evening, I'm Trish 15 Milligan, I'm a certified health physicist, I work for 16 the NRC.
I'm also a pharmacist, I've spent a lot of 17 years in the practice of pharmacy, and also nuclear 18
- pharmacy, so I have a wide spectrum background, and 19 I've spent a number of years working for a nuclear 20 power stations.
21 The 12 deaths that you are talking about, 22 those aren't real deaths.
It is not like we walk in 23 and say, one, two, three, four, five, too bad for you 24 guys.
25 What we do is we calculate, statistically NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
56 1
we calculate, based on a lot of assumptions, and a lot 2
of models, what would happen if this person, or this 3
large population received X
amount of dose for a 4
period of time.
5 Now, there are several theories that are 6
in considerable debate in the scientific community.
7 And the theory that we use, and the model that we use 8
to come up with these statistically calculated deaths, 9
if you will, is something that is known as linear no 10 threshold.
11 We assume that any dose, no matter how 12 small, has some impact.
And we assume that it is more 13 or less a straight line, higher dose, higher impact.
14 And that is the model that we use.
15 If you look at other work that is out 16
- there, in fact there was a statement put out by the 17 Health Physics Society, which is a large collection of 18 scientists in the field of radiation protection and 19 physics, and only a very small percentage of those are 20 involved in reactor health physics.
21 They believe, based on evidence that is in 22 the world today that there is, in fact, a threshold.
23 And they would suggest, from their position statement, 24 that any dose below 10 rem is considered 25 inconsequential, because there is no body of evidence, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
57 1
hard evidence, to suggest that anything less than 10 2
rem is deleterious to health.
3 At the NRC we have adopted the most 4
conservative model, which is any dose would have some 5
impact.
Based on that, and based on the assumptions 6
of human
- behavior, and this infinitely large 7
population, we calculated if you believe A, B, C, D, 8
E, then over a population, over a lifetime, you may 9
expect to see 12 additional cancers in this area.
10
- Now, if you look at the, what I guess I 11 would call the background cancer rate in this country, 12 there is approximately 1.3 to 1.5 million new cancers 13 that are diagnosed each year.
14 So what we would be talking about would be 15 a statistical number 12, or 2000 over 20 years, so 16 that would be -- yes, so that would be, essentially, 17 100 additional cancers if you will, over an infinitely 18 large population surrounding all the power plants.
19 Now, people always get uncomfortable when 20 we are talking about statistically calculated deaths.
21 Because, after all, we are more than statistics.
And 22 I understand that.
23 Having had cancer myself, and having lost 24 a younger brother to cancer, I understand very much 25 what statistics are all about, and none of us like to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
58 1
feel like we are statistically insignificant.
2 But when we look at these kind of models 3
we make some very broad, very conservative, very 4
protective assumptions.
So that when we say 12 5
additional deaths, or 2000 additional deaths over 20 6
years, those aren't real people, it is not like 12 7
people put up your hands and you are out of here.
8 These are just statistical models that are 9
- done, much like what the EPA does when they do the 10 risk
- analysis, where they decide there is an 11 acceptable risk of 1 in 10,000 cancers.
It doesn't 12 mean that 1 in 10,000 of us is going to get a cancer 13 from this particular toxin.
14 It is just meaning based on these models, 15 and these assumptions, this is the conclusion that we 16 have come to, in order to affect a very wide margin of 17 safety for the public.
18 So it is not like there is 12, or 2000 19 people equals 20 years are going to fall
- over, and 20 that is from reactor emissions.
That is just part of 21 the modeling that we use, and it is a very, very 22 conservative
- model, for which is under tremendous 23 debate in the scientific community at this point.
24 Do you have any questions?
25 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
- Yes, I think there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
59 1
might be.
Do you want to ask a question, Sandy?
2 MS.
SMITH:
Well, on the risk assessment, 3
I don't think any -- the risk is always, it is a risk.
4 And we shouldn't be, I don't think you would have a 5
risk with how many people are going to die from 6
windmills.
7 So maybe we ought to work on some other 8
energy things, here.
We had Dr. M&
was here, and 9
I'm not going to go on with his credentials, maybe 10 some of you are familiar, maybe not.
11 But he is very well known in the field.
12 He doesn't work for the NRC, or he doesn't own a 13 nuclear facility, so he has nothing to gain, one way 14 or the other.
And he has done a lot of independent 15 studies.
16 One of them is the famous tooth fairy 17 study, where what he has done is that the body doesn't 18 know the difference between strontium 90 and calcium.
19 So strontium 90 being radiation.
So the body will 20 take in whatever is available.
21 If there is a lot of radiation in the 22 area, and I'm making this simple, the body will take 23 in more radiation than calcium.
If you are in an 24 area, maybe if you took more calcium, you would be all 25 right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
60 1
At any rate is the idea is, the government 2
has done these studies in the past, and the idea is, 3
they are taking teeth from children that were born 4
after
- 1970, across the United States, checking the 5
teeth for strontium 90, and trying to see if there is 6
hot spots, if there is any kind of correlation, or 7
whatever.
8 And very interesting that here in 9
Lancaster, York, and Chester County it is very high, 10 it is 26 percent higher with the children.
And he had 11 some very good studies, and statistics, which he 12 handed in before.
13 So it basically depends who you hear from.
14 And I always like to hear from someone who has nothing 15 to gain, politically, or money, or anything, rather 16 than the fox watching the henhouse.
Thank you.
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
If anybody wants to 18 see the full text of Joe Mangano's presentation today, 19 it will be on the transcript that will be available.
20 Thank you,
- Sandy, and thanks Trish, for trying to 21 clarify that, clarifying that for us.
22 Mr.
Guyll, are you ready?
And I think 23 this microphone is fixed now, isn't it?
This is Mr.
24 Ernest Guyll.
25 MR.
GUYLL:
I prepared some written NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
61 1
- comments, I will just read from them, so I won't go 2
too long.
3 I received the draft report for comment of 4
the generic environmental impact statement for the 5
license renewal of nuclear powers, regarding Peach 6
Bottom atomic power station Units 2 and 3.
7 And this is not really a reader friendly 8
- document, and I had some trouble locating points of 9
interest.
I was here on November 7th, and made some 10 comments there.
11 There was no mention of my question 12 regarding an evacuation plan for the Amish in the 13 event of a nuclear accident.
And I made this question 14 in the past at other NRC meetings.
I've never seen 15 any evacuation plan for the Amish.
16 I found no mention of my request that past 17 performance of the plant be taken into account, 18 including control room operators sleeping on the job.
19 Perhaps that is not a new issue.
20 There was no mention of my concern of the 21 danger of spent radioactive fuel being stored on site.
22 There was no mention of my comments about the problems 23 with the emergency warning sirens.
24 In an NRC document dated August
- 15th, 25
- 2001, it is noted, and I'm quoting here from the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 document:
"Two former contract technicians 2
deliberately falsified siren testing maintenance 3
- records, and performed inadequate siren tests while 4
professing that all activities on siren records were 5
properly done.
6
- And, two, one of these technicians 7
knowingly installed jumper wires to bypass failure 8
detection circuitry on at least 10 siren boxes, which 9
would demonstrate that the sirens were working 10 properly, even if they were not."
11 And that might be an old issue, too, that 12 might not be a new issue.
13 It is my opinion that the NRC had already 14 decided to renew the license of the Peach Bottom power 15 plant when they received the application.
The only 16 reason meetings are held is to meet a requirement.
17 Sam Gejdenson, the former Chairman of the 18 House Interior Subcommittee on Oversight said about 19 the NRC:
On a number of occasions the --
I'm sorry, 20 I'm quoting here.
21 "On a number of occasions the Commission 22 has acted as if it were the advocate for, and not the 23 regulator of the nuclear industry."
24 I
continue to be concerned about an 25 earthquake, given the proximity of the martic fault NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
63 1
line.
And, by the way, that is spelled M-A-R-T-I-C, 2
not M-A-R-T-I-C-K, as erroneously recorded in the 3
report.
4 According to a Lancaster New Era article, 5
on July 1st,
- 1994, corrosive cracks found inside a 6
Peach Bottom reactor "could cause a meltdown during an 7
accident or earthquake, the Nuclear Regulatory 8
Commission said today.
Cracks in the York County 9
nuclear reactor are expected to grow, and will have to 10 be monitored, the NRC said.
11 NRC officials also warned that the cracks 12 could lead to a meltdown if they shift during an 13 accident, or a natural disaster."
14 And I could find no mention of this in the 15 draft report for comment.
And that also might not be 16 a new issue, that was seven years ago.
17 I
would still like to know how many 18 accidental releases of radiation have occurred at 19 Peach Bottom since it began operations.
I would like 20 to know the type of radiation, the amount of each 21 release.
The draft report does not address this in 22 detail.
23 I would like to have data on cancer cases, 24 birth defects, and stillbirths in a ten mile radius of 25 the
- plant, and compare this information to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
64 1
national average.
2 The draft report does not address this in 3
detail.
I would like to know the type of radioactive 4
isotopes at the plant, and the half life of these 5
isotopes.
Are strontium 90 and strontium 89 the only 6
radioactive isotopes at the plant?
Because I think 7
those are the only two mentioned in the report.
8 The draft report notes the socioeconomic 9
problems associated with the shutdown and 10 decommissioning of Peach Bottom.
However, if a power 11 plant were to operate around the same area, using 12 renewable resources, such a plant would need a large 13 number of employees who would probably be just as 14 involved in the community as the current Peach Bottom 15 employees.
16 And I do not agree with the conclusion of 17 the draft report which notes that the impact of 18 renewing the license at Peach Bottom would have a 19 small impact on land use,
- ecology, water use, and 20 quality, air quality and waste.
21 I
do not agree the use of renewable 22 resources at the same site have a greater impact on 23 the environment than the current plan.
24 Since the Peach Bottom plant is located on 25 the edge of the great east coast megalopolis, an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
65 1
accident could have a devastating effect on millions 2
of people.
3 We need to shut down and decommission the 4
Peach Bottom atomic power plant before a horrible 5
accident occurs.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Thank you very much, 7
Mr. Guyll.
Duke, did you have something to add?
8 MR.
WHEELER:
Excuse me, Ernie, you are in 9
our mailing list for correspondence related to our 10 environmental review, and I'm wondering, do you recall 11 receiving a copy of our environmental scoping summary 12 report, back in April?
I have a copy of it here that 13 I will share with you.
14 I will let you see what it is.
And if you 15 did not receive a copy, when I get back to the office 16 I will put a copy in the mail to you, and it does 17 identify, it addresses various things that you brought 18 up here, at least the great majority of them.
19 I don't have them all in my head.
- But, 20 for example, your interest in the provisions for 21 evacuation of the Amish, and where that fits into our 22 license renewal.
That is in our scoping summary 23 report.
24 If you will see me after the meeting, I've 25 got my copy of it, and I will make sure that you get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.om
66 1
a copy.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
That is correct, and 3
I think that what Duke is saying is that we did try to 4
be responsive to your comments.
- And, Duke, if you 5
could talk to Mr. Guyll offline?
6 MR.
WHEELER:
And also the librarians are 7
on my list.
I will call the libraries and see if they 8
got this particular document.
I may need to mail it 9
out again.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
- Thanks, Mr. Guyll, 11 and thanks Duke.
We are next going to go to Mr. Alan 12 Brinson, from the Emergency Management Agency of the 13 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
14 MR.
BRINSON:
Good evening, everyone.
My 15 name is Alan Brinson, thank you.
I appreciate and 16 thank you all for coming out here.
17 This type of meeting is doing exactly what 18 it is supposed to do; provide information, give you 19 opportunities to discuss things, to learn some things, 20 and perhaps to provide some clarification.
21 Today I heard a number of things mentioned 22 that I would like to expound upon, a
little bit.
23 First of all I'm the lead emergency off-site planner 24 for this state, for Peach Bottom atomic power plant.
25 And while I profess to be no expert, I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
67 1
have immersed myself in the emergency preparedness of 2
this community, and am quite familiar with a number of 3
facets associated with that.
4 The comments regarding the Amish 5
community, it is very important.
There are a number 6
of provisions that have been set forth for the Amish 7
community.
This is not a new issue, it is something 8
that comes up on a
fairly routine
- basis, and 9
particularly an important one at this time.
10 So that we can clarify exactly what is 11 being done with the Amish community, let me go ahead 12 and speak on it.
13 The easiest way to do this is to start off 14 with the siren
- system, and the EAS.
It was 15 particularly troubling to us, the State of 16 Pennsylvania, as well as the NRC, when Peach Bottom 17 and the siren system indicated the problems that the 18 gentleman just spoke about.
19 The
- utility, to their
- merit, actually 20 self-reported that event.
So it was the utility who 21 took the first response, and many subsequent reports, 22 to satisfy the Commonwealth, and the NRC, that the 23 siren problem was addressed, and that any future 24 problems with the siren would become certainly not the 25 issue that was presented when falsification took NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
68 1
place.
2 But the utility did the right thing in 3
reporting, and I think you will find that in the 4
supplemental reports that were filed with the NRC.
5
- Now, the siren system is the primary 6
method for communicating with the public.
Following 7
that, an emergency alert system, turning to radios, 8
and television.
But there are also other methods for 9
communicating across the Commonwealth.
10 If the sirens fail we immediately go into 11 a route alerting.
Much of this is done at the county 12
- level, and plans are in place for each county to 13 respond to a siren failure and provide route alerting 14 teams.
15 Now, against popular myth, the Amish do 16 have radios.
The Amish, from what I gather, are 17 certainly tapped into the national oceanographic, or 18 NOAA through the national weather service radios.
19 They certainly have the ability to get information, 20 and we have the ability to put information through the 21 National Weather Service, so that they have emergency 22 information relative to Peach Bottom, through that 23 delivery system.
24 As I said before, the counties have the 25 predominant responsibility for including provisions in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
69 1
their plans for the treatment of not only the Amish, 2
but all publics in the community area.
3 Lancaster and York specifically address, 4
in their plans, a set of procedures on how to address 5
the Amish population.
Chester county, they have one 6
municipality in this EPZ, emergency planning zone, 7
that is West Nottingham township.
8
- And, frankly, they have four families.
9 Those families are part of the police of West 10 Nottingham, to be notified by the police in West 11 Nottingham Township.
12 Much has to be said about the Amish way of 13 communicating.
The plans that the counties have are 14 to notify the bishops.
The bishops then have various 15 methods to contact members of their community.
16 And for many of us who are not familiar 17 with the Amish, it seems to be something of a mystery.
18 But for those of us who live in and amongst the Amish 19 community, as I do, they have quite an efficient, and 20 effective way for getting information out to each 21 other, I can assure you of that.
22
- Now, they also have the same access to 23 what is called a
special needs survey that is 24 conducted annually.
The special needs surveys are 25 sent out in mailings to every household in the EPZ.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
70 1
Those people who have special conditions, 2
whether they need notification, whether they are 3
hearing impaired, or whether they are unable to walk, 4
or be transported, they go into a special needs form 5
that is then placed with the county.
6 So there is a data base in the county for 7
people with special needs.
- Now, there has been an 8
enhancement to that, because this Amish question is so 9
important to us.
The counties have now requested that 10 their annual survey for special needs include a
11 questionnaire.
12 And you will be seeing this in the York 13
- area, I believe, in the near future.
This survey 14 question is going to be asking the question, do you 15 have access to a phone or a radio?
16 If the respondents to that survey indicate 17 no, they will be placed in the special needs group.
18 And as such the county, or the municipality, whatever 19 jurisdiction is responsible, for communicating with 20 those people, will then be --
they will be putting 21 messages out to them through this special needs 22 program.
23 So there are many methods to communicating 24 with the Amish. Any questions?
Thank you very much.
25 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Thank you, Al, for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
71 1
providing that information from the state for us, 2
thank you.
3 I would like to ask Dr. Shirley Liebman to 4
come up and talk to us.
Dr. Liebman?
5 DR.
LIEBMAN:
I'm going to read my 6
comments.
I usually don't read in some of these 7
presentations, but I will at this time.
8 Our family has resided in Lancaster County 9
since the '60s, and for the past 20 years or so, right 10 in Holtwood, just ten miles or so north of here.
11 My attendance at the first public scoping 12 meeting last
- fall, for the license renewal, gave me a 13 first-hand knowledge of the process that was discussed 14 in
- detail, in numerous handouts, with much relevant 15 data.
16 Unfortunately the negative comments by the 17 anti-nuclear activists were amplified by the media, 18 rather than the overall supportive input by our local 19 residents, such as myself, and most other interested 20 attendees.
21 Basically we feel that our national energy 22 needs have been outlined, over these past decades.
23 And the vital role that nuclear energy plays now, and 24 should play in the future, is clear to us.
25 The Peach Bottom facility has had an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
72 1
outstanding performance record, overall.
The draft 2
report, that we've just heard about, and we are here 3
to discuss, prepared for this renewal of the specific 4
nuclear plant, addressed all required regulatory 5
issues in a clear and comprehensive manner.
6 Many questions posed by the interested 7
- citizens, at the meeting that I
was at, were 8
addressed, and gave essentially a basic conclusion.
9 There has been, and will be, minimal 10 negative environmental impact.
You all have used the 11 word small as your category of comment.
Indeed, it is 12 acknowledged by all reasonable persons that no human 13 actions are totally risk-free.
14 Not in our homes, not in our community, 15 and certainly not throughout the environment.
The 16 risk assessment studies that we've just heard 17 explained by the gentleman, helped to put the 18 environmental issues into perspective, as conducted by 19 the NRC and other capable people.
20 I believe that the stated plans given in 21 the draft provide for the highest level of safety and 22 efficiency that is reasonable, that reflect the 23
- concerns, and the expertise of those directly 24 responsible for the management and operations of the 25 Peach Bottom plant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
73 1
- Indeed, it is imperative that we are 2
supposed to be continuing in all our nuclear plant 3
facilities, and the waste transportation actions, to 4
improve in this new era of our homeland security 5
concerns.
6 So in summary the projected license 7
renewal of the Peach Bottom nuclear plant is a vital 8
path in meeting our nation's immediate and future 9
energy needs.
10 So as local residents, and concerned 11 citizens, our family strongly supports the proposed 12 NRC actions.
And just to throw a comment in, since 13 some of these other persons have raised some questions 14 as to some technical capabilities, and what have you, 15 that they felt were in question.
16 I'm retired from industrial research and 17 development with about 40 years working in the 18 materials and environmental sciences.
And my 19 colleagues in the industrial research community, the 20 universities, and with the EPA researchers, have made 21 it quite a
direct connection to this area of 22 environmental concerns.
23 My work with the EPA people, as an 24 industrial researcher, was in the '70s and '80s.
And 25 together, all of us in industry and government, really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
74 1
worked to put together the so-called master analytical 2
scheme, our areas in analytical research and services, 3
and in the environmental sciences, for the methods and 4
instrumentation that are now fundamental throughout 5
the country, and the world, in environmental trace 6
analysis.
7 So the results of my
- research, 8
specifically if any of you wish to find out which kind 9
of detectors are used, and you are concerned that the 10 ability of the NRC to monitor properly the air,
- water, 11 and solids materials, my colleagues and I
have 12 documented our work in over 200 publications, and 13 presentations in about two or three dozen technical 14 journals, many articles, book chapters, and books, and 15 so forth.
16 So there is lot of documented information 17 that you can follow, for those who feel it necessary.
18 Thank you.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Thank you very much, 20 Dr. Liebman.
y 21 Is Nick Roth here?
Okay, that is all the 22 speakers we had for tonight.
And is there anybody 23 that I missed?
24 (No response.)
25 FACILITATOR CAMERON:
Well, the NRC staff, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our experts, archaeologists, and other disciplines are here.
Please feel free to talk to them after the meeting.
We are going to adjourn now, and thank you all for coming out and sharing your comments with us.
Goodnight.
(Whereupon, at 9:00 p.m.
the above entitled matter was concluded.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding:
Docket Number:
Location:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Peach Bottom Power Station, Units 2
& 3 License Renewal Evening Session N/A Delta, Pennsylvania were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
( --Donna Willis Official Reporter Neal R.
Gross & Co.,
Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com