NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS LICENSING HEARING CONVENED IN CRYSTAL RIVER

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission`s (NRC) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board convened at Crystal River`s Plantation Inn Resort on Thursday, January 12, 2012, from 1pm to 4pm and again to 7pm to 10pm to hear public comments regarding Progress Energy Florida (PEF), Inc.`s application for a license to construct and operate two nuclear power plants in Levy County. In the first 1pm to 4pm session, 37 members of the public spoke: 25 spoke against licensing the facilities; 12 spoke on behalf of PEF.

PRO PEF ARGUMENTS
The 12 individuals speaking for PEF included: a Citrus County Economic Council representative; two businessmen who have as customers Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; a Levy County commissioner; a retiree from the energy industry; three Citrus County commissioners; the Crystal River city manager; several Citrus County residents, not Levy County residents living where the facilities could be constructed. Not one person identifying himself as a Levy County resident spoke in defense of PEF.

These individuals cited the following reasons supporting PEF`s application to construct and operate two nuclear plants: potential larger population needs; job creation; tax base increase; current lack of wind and solar power.

These individuals neither directly addressed nor contradicted the health and environmental arguments posed by the anti-PEF group.

ANTI DEF ARGUMENTS
The 25 individuals speaking against the construction and operation of the nuclear power plants included: a pediatrician and representative of Physicians for Social Responsibility, registered nonprofit groups` representatives, a teacher, retirees, environmentalist activists, a homeowner consortium representative, a wind energy businessman, a Sierra Club representative, a doctor who works with radiation, and numerous Alachua, Marion, and Levy County residents.

These individuals cited myriad reasons why Progress Energy Florida, Inc.`s construction and operation of two nuclear power plants would have deleterious effects on the area. Many cited specific current research and entered copies into the record. Among their concerns were: Tarmac Mines` current large environmental impact; safety issues regarding spent rods storage; high incidence of cancer; cancer`s higher incidence in children, fetuses, and women; radiation exposure; leaking tritium; five million gallons of groundwater taken out of the aquifer daily; up to 130 million gallons taken out of the Barge Canal daily; current drought conditions with no signs of drought lifting; salt-water intrusion and the inability to rectify salt-water intrusion; wetland devastation; floodplain devastation; Florida Greenways interruption; nuclear reactors` devastation to the waters which function as fish nurseries and food sources; negative effects on fishermen and fishing industry; individual homeowners` and farmers` wells running dry or drier; further diminishment of the aquifer which is dropping annually; already diminishing water clarity; illegality of altering protected wetlands.

Further arguments centered upon PEF`s poor management and maintenance practices: the breaking of Panels Three, Five, and One; repeated telephone calls and e-mails not returned; the expectation that citizens should pay for expenses incurred by the profit-making organization with no way to have the dollars returned to them.

Solar and wind power alternatives were proffered. The ideas that danger is imminent and local, money and water are traveling south, and that Levy County has all of the risk and none of the benefits were repeated.

SCOPE OF PROCEEDING
The scope of the proceeding was limited to Contention 4A which states that the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) fails to comply with 10CFR part 51 and the National Environmental Policy Act because it fails to specifically and adequately address, and inappropriately characterizes as SMALL, certain direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, onsite and offsite, of constructing and operating the proposed" nuclear facilities. In such proceedings, the public may speak, but the judges do not respond with information. Administrative Judges at this proceeding included: Chairman Alex S. Karlin, Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, and Dr. Randall Charbaneau.

BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2009, the NRC published in the Federal Register notice that any interested person could file a challenge to PEF`s application to construct and operate two nuclear power plants in Levy County. On February 6, 2008, three such entities, termed Intervenors, filed a challenge: the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the Ecology Party of Florida, and the Green Party of Florida. On February 23, 2009 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established to handle the matter and only July 8, 2009, granted the Intrevenors` request regarding only one of its contentions, thus limiting content of the appearance statements.