ML050540167
| ML050540167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/2005 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-173 | |
| Download: ML050540167 (366) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Millstone Power Station Draft EIS Public Meeting: Evening Session Docket Number: (not applicable)
Location: Waterford, Connecticut Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Work Order No.: NRC-1 73 Pages 1-117 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 . . . . .
4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6 FOR MILLSTONE POWER STATION 7 . . . . .
8 TUESDAY 9 JANUARY 11, 2005 10 . . . . .
11 WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT 12 . . . . .
13 The public meeting was held in the 14 auditorium of the Waterford Town Hall at 7:02 p.m.,
15 CHIP CAMERON, Facilitator, presiding.
16 PRESENT:
17 RICHARD EMCH, NRC 18 ANDY KUGLER, NRC 19 ROBERT PALLA, NRC 20 DR. TED DOERR, LANL 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 . . 234-4433 (202)
2 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 AGENDA ITEM PAGE 3 I. Welcome and Purpose of Meeting 4 4 II. Overview of License Renewal Process 8 5 III. Results of the Environmental Review 21 6 IV. How Comments can be Submitted 74 7 V. Public Comments 74 8 VI. Closing/Availability of Transcripts, etc. 120 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 (202) 234-4433
3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (7:02 p.m.)
3 MR. ECCARD: Good evening, everyone. So 4 many people are still here who were here starting at 5 1:30 this afternoon, but there are some additional 6 faces I see in the room. So for you, welcome to 7 Waterford Town Hall. And welcome to some of you to 8 the Town of Waterford. I'm pleased to see that our 9 regional senator is here, Senator Stillman. Nice to 10 see you here.
11 We all realize it's a snowy night. In 12 fact, the snow is coming in very fast. But the public 13 process and this session is important and crucial. So 14 our appreciation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 to be here tonight to receive the public comments from 16 the draft environmental impact statement for license 17 renewal.
18 For those of you who weren't here this 19 afternoon, -- and you will hear a little bit more 20 about this, but I will just comment again from my 21 perspective that the record remains open for a number 22 of weeks until sometime in March, I believe.
23 And also you will hear this again, but the 24 draft environmental impact statement is available on 25 the NRC Web site. And a number of residents and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 citizens told me that is how they read the information 2 and that is the resource they have used for that. But 3 there are obviously copies here tonight, too.
4 It's a process, a process that some of us 5 here in the room have been watching now for many 6 months. And it continues. And a lot of people have 7 participated very actively. So thank you all for 8 participating in the process. And for everyone who 9 has to travel home tonight, drive carefully when you 10 do leave.
11 And, with that and with appreciation, I 12 will introduce Chip Cameron. Chip, good to have you 13 here. Good to see you.
14 I. WELCOME AND PURPOSE OF MEETING 15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you. Thank 16 you very much. For those of you who don't know him, 17 this is Paul Eccard, First Selectman, Town of 18 Waterford. Thank you, Paul.
19 And welcome to the NRC public meeting. My 20 name is Chip Cameron. I am the Special Counsel for 21 Public Liaison at the NRC. And it's my pleasure to 22 serve as facilitator to this evening's meeting.
23 Our topic of discussion tonight is the 24 environmental review that the NRC has conducted as one 25 part of its evaluation of the application that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 received from Dominion Nuclear Connecticut to renew 2 the operating licenses for the Millstone Units 1 and 3 2. And I just want to spend a few minutes on the 4 meeting process before we get started.
5 The format for the meeting is basically 6 going to be a two-part format. The first part is 7 going to consist of some brief NRC presentations, 8 where we will try to clearly explain to all of you 9 what our process is for looking at this license 10 application and what our analysis and conclusions are 11 in a draft environmental impact statement that we 12 completed. And then we'll go out to see if there are 13 any questions from any of you on either process or 14 what is in the draft environmental impact statement.
15 The second part of the meeting is an 16 opportunity for us to listen to any concerns that you 17 might have, advice, recommendations on the draft 18 environmentalsimpact statement.
19 As the NRC staff will tell you, they are 20 taking written comments on the draft environmental 21 impact statement. I want to assure you that anything 22 you say tonight is going to carry as much weight as 23 written comment, but you may hear things tonight from 24 either the NRC staff or from other people in the 25 audience that will prompt you to submit a written NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 comment. That is certainly fine, but anything you say 2 to us tonight will be captured on the record.
3 Ground rules are real simple during the 4 question and answer period. If you have a question, 5 just signal me. And I'll bring you this cordless 6 microphone. And please introduce yourself to us and 7 any affiliation, if appropriate.
8 I would ask that only one person speak at 9 a time. Peter Holland is our stenographer, our court 10 reporter. And we're taking a transcript of this. So 11 we want to give our full attention to whomever has the 12 floor at the time. And that will also allow us to get 13 a clean transcript of the meeting.
14 I would just also ask you to try to be as 15 concise as possible so that everybody can have an 16 opportunity to talk. And when we get to the comment 17 period, I'm asking people to please keep their 18 comments to five minutes. That's not a you're going 19 to crash through a hole in the floor or something if 20 you go over five minutes. There's leeway there. But 21 I really want to make sure that everybody has a chance 22 to talk and also with the weather, we want to make 23 sure that no one gets stuck here too late. So please 24 try to follow that.
25 We think that five minutes gives you a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 chance to summarize what you might have to say. There 2 is an opportunity to file more extensive written 3 comments. And it gives us an idea of what issues are 4 of concern and also gives other people in the audience 5 an idea of what issues are of concern.
6 So I would just thank you for being here 7 to help us with this decision. And let me introduce 8 the NRC speakers for tonight, and we'll get on with 9 the meeting.
10 The first speaker is Mr. Andy Kugler.
11 Andy is the Chief of the Environmental Review Section 12 at the NRC. He and his staff conduct all of the 13 environmental reviews on any reactor license 14 application, be it a license renewal, an early site 15 permit, or anything else.
16 And he's been with the agency 15 years, 17 worked for a nuclear utility and within the Navy 18 submarine Service, Bachelor's from Cooper Union in 19 mechanical engineering and a Master's from Johns 20 Hopkins University.
21 Andy is going to talk about the process.
22 II. OVERVIEW OF LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS 23 MR. KUGLER: Good evening. Thank you for 24 coming out tonight. We're not having too good luck 25 with our voices this evening. The project manager for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 this review won't be able to speak tonight because he 2 has lost his voice. So I will cover his slide, but I 3 want to thank you all for coming out tonight.
4 I guess what I will do, I will briefly 5 indicate what our agenda is for this evening. We're 6 going to go ahead and talk about the process, as Chip 7 indicated. And I will cover that. Then we will talk 8 more specifically about the environmental review 9 process that we went through.
10 Then we will get into a discussion of the 11 results of the review. And for that, we will have the 12 team leader from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mr.
13 Ted Doerr, come up and speak. Ted, if you could just 14 stand for a moment so folks know who you are?
15 Ted will come up and discuss the results 16 of the review. And there is going to be one specific 17 piece of the review which is a little different that 18 Ted won't cover. And that will be covered by Mr. Bob 19 Palla. He will be talking about issues related to 20 severe accidents, a rather special case that we take 21 a look at.
22 After that, it will come back I guess to 23 me. And I'll talk about the review schedule, the 24 balance of the review schedule, and how you can submit 25 your comments. And that's the entire game plan.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 All right. I'd like to start by giving 2 you a little bit of background on the Nuclear 3 Regulatory Commission. We get our authority from the 4 Atomic Energy Act. And it authorizes us to issue 5 operating licenses for nuclear power plants for a 6 period of 40 years. For Millstone Units 2 and 3, 7 those licenses will expire in 2015 and 2025, 8 respectively. Our regulations also allow us to renew 9 the licenses for an additional 20 years.
10 The review process is much like the 11 original review process. It has two parts. And one 12 of those parts is the environmental review that we are 13 here to talk about tonight.
14 We have issued a draft environmental 15 impact statement for public comment. And we'll take 16 comments tonight from you as well after the conclusion 17 of our remarks.
18 Next slide. I would like to speak a 19 little bit just briefly about our mission. The NRC 20 mission is to protect the public health and safety, to 21 protect the environment, and to provide for a common 22 defense and security. We're authorized under the 23 Atomic Energy Act to regulate the civilian uses of 24 nuclear materials.
25 We accomplish our mission through a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 combination of programs, including inspections, 2 assessments of licensee performance, enforcement 3 actions, and the review of operating experience from 4 the plants around the country.
5 In talking about license renewals, in 6 particular, our review includes a safety review and an 7 environmental review. The safety review includes a 8 safety evaluation report, inspections on site, and an 9 independent review by the Advisory Committee on 10 Reactor Safeguards. And I'll speak more about that in 11 a moment.
12 Next slide. This slide is a big picture 13 overview of the license renewal process. And there 14 are two basic tracks. The upper track is a safety 15 review. And the lower track is the environmental 16 review.
17 In talking about the safety review, the 18 staff assesses the technical information in the 19 application related to aging management of components 20 in the plant.
21 There is a team of about 30 staff and 22 contractors performing this review. And the team is 23 led by the safety project manager, Mr. Johnny Eads, 24 who is right here with us this evening.
25 The safety review focuses on how Dominion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 will manage the aging of certain systems, structures, 2 and components. Some of those programs for managing 3 aging are already in place at the plant. Others will 4 be implemented for license renewal.
5 The safety review process also involves 6 audits and on-site inspections. These inspections are 7 conducted by teams drawn together from both our 8 headquarters office and the regional office.
9 And we do have representatives of the 10 inspection process here this evening. We have the 11 senior resident inspector with us, Mr. Max Schneider.
12 Mr. Schneider is stationed here at Millstone. He 13 works here every day. And then we also have his 14 branch chief from Region I, Mr. Paul Krohn. He works 15 out of our regional office in King of Prussia, 16 Pennsylvania.
17 The results of the inspections are then 18 documented in inspection reports. And the results are 19 considered in the development of the safety evaluation 20 report, which is currently underway. Both of the 21 on-site inspections that are planned have been 22 completed.
23 After the safety evaluation report is 24 prepared, it is provided to the Advisory Committee on 25 Reactor Safeguards, a consulting body for the NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 Commission. They review the application and the 2 staff's safety evaluation report. They develop their 3 own conclusions and recommendations. And they provide 4 those to the Commission.
5 As I mentioned, the second part of the 6 review process involves the environmental review. And 7 we have prepared the draft environmental impact 8 statement that we're discussing tonight. We will be 9 accepting the comments this evening and also any 10 written comments through March 2nd. And after we have 11 reviewed those comments and made any changes, we will 12 issue the final environmental statement, which is 13 expected in July of this year.
14 As you can see from the slide, there are 15 a number of inputs to the Commission's final decision 16 on whether or not to approve license renewal. There' s 17 a safety evaluation report, the environmental impact 18 statement, the independent assessment of the Advisory 19 Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and the inspection 20 reports.
21 One thing I do want to mention on this 22 slide, there were some splashes or splash symbols.
23 These are opportunities for public involvement in the 24 review. The two on the bottom line are both involved 25 in the environmental review. We came out for scoping NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 back in May of last year. And there was a comment 2 period during that time when people could submit 3 written comments as well on what we should consider in 4 our review.
5 And now we're back. The second splash 6 there, we're back to collect comments on the draft.
7 And, again, there is a comment period open on that.
8 There was a request for a hearing.
9 However, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board did not 10 admit any of the contentions that were brought 11 forward. And, therefore, there is no hearing on this 12 review. '-
13 Finally, when the Advisory Committee on 14 Reactor Safeguards holds its hearings, those hearings 15 are open to the public.
16 All right. Next slide, please. All 17 right. Turning now very specifically to the 18 environmental review, the National Environmental 19 Policy Act requires us to perform a very systematic 20 review of the impacts for any major Federal action.
21 The Commission has determined that we will prepare an 22 environmental impact statement for license renewal.
23 Next slide. This is our review standard.
24 Basically, the way it is written may be a little 25 awkward, but what we are trying to say is we don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 have a role in deciding whether or not economically 2 this plant should continue to run. Our job is to 3 determine whether or not the environmental impacts are 4 such that it would be unreasonable to allow license 5 renewal.
6 The point I am trying to make is that even 7 if we renew these licenses, the licensee could decide 8 to shut a plant down sooner than the end of a license 9 if economic conditions so indicated.
10 This is a little more detail on the 11 environmental review process. The application was 12 received in January of 2004. We issued our notice of 13 intent in March of 2004 that we were going to prepare 14 the environmental impact statement and carry out 15 scoping.
16 We held our scoping meeting here in May of 17 last year as well as held the scoping activities in 18 general. We also during that time frame came out and 19 did our site audit, where we actually came out to the 20 site, reviewed information on site and in the area 21 around the site, brought the entire team out for that.
22 In June of 2004, we issued some requests 23 for additional information, using that information, 24 then, to develop the draft environmental impact 25 statement that we're discussing tonight.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 After we complete reviewing comments, as 2 I said, we plan to issue the final environmental 3 impact statement. And that's currently scheduled for 4 July of this year.
5 Those are my comments on the process.
6 Chip?
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 8 Andy. We are ready to go to the substance now.
9 MR. KUGLER: That's correct.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Before we go into 11 the conclusions, the analysis in the draft 12 environmental impact statement, do people have 13 questions about the NRC process?
14 If you have questions about substantive 15 aspects of the environmental impact statement, let's 16 save those. And we'll get to those after that 17 presentation, but are there questions about the 18 process, the safety side, the environmental side, how 19 all of that comes together in terms of 20 decision-making?
21 MS. WINSLOW: I just have a question on 22 the slide.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. This is 24 Susan?
25 MS. WINSLOW: Gerry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Gerry. Can you just 2 give us your name on the record?
3 MS. WINSLOW: Gerry Winslow from 4 Waterford. If you could go back to that slide where 5 the hearing was? Right. So this ACRS review, could 6 you tell me anything about that?
7 It looks as if tonight is the last night 8 for public comment. I guess that is my question. Is 9 tonight the last chance for the public to participate 10 in this process?
11 MR. KUGLER: No, it's not.
12 MS. WINSLOW: Okay.
13 MR. KUGLER: In addition to being able to 14 provide verbal comments tonight, you can continue to 15 provide written comments on the draft environmental 16 impact statement through March 2nd. So there is still 17 time. If you hear something tonight or if in looking 18 over the document 'after tonight you have a comment, 19 you still have time to provide those comments.
20 In addition, the Advisory Committee on 21 Reactor Safeguards has not yet reviewed the safety 22 evaluation report. Now, that's a public meeting. I 23 will say that public meeting will be in Washington.
24 So it's not local.
25 MS. WINSLOW: And will the public be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 allowed to participate there?
2 MR. KUGLER: Johnny, maybe you should 3 probably answer that. I haven't really been involved 4 with the ACRS directly. You need a mike.
5 MR. EADS: The ACRS does allow public 6 comment. If you do plan on speaking, you need to 7 notify the ACRS. And you will see the opportunity to 8 do that. The ACRS publishes an agenda for their 9 meetings on our Web site. And if you wanted to 10 participate, you would need to communicate with them.
11 There is a formal, fairly formal, review process.
12 I'll just give you a quick thing on the timing.
13 The full subcommittee meeting, where we 14 will do the broad discussions, will occur in April, 15 usually the first week in April of this year. And 16 then the full ACRS committee, which is an abbreviated 17 session, will occur in September.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Johnny, before you 19 sit down, there is one other aspect to this that may 20 be useful for you, that on the safety side, we have 21 sometimes, either in Washington or in the area of the 22 plant, had meetings with the license applicant.
23 Those meetings are typically open to the 24 public. And I guess at some point during the meeting, 25 there might be room for public comment. But could you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 just elaborate a little bit on that to make sure that 2 I am correct on that?
3 MR. EADS: Certainly. On the safety 4 review side, I personally have conducted four 5 meetings. We have done two here. When we did our 6 audits, we brought a very large team, about 12 people, 7 out to perform audits over a 3-4-week kind of slot.
8 We did have an exit meeting for that, a public exit 9 meeting, at the Millstone facility.
10 We also did a smaller one-week audit here 11 earlier in May. We also did a public exit meeting for 12 that. We did the inspections. Part of the inspection 13 review involved a public exit meeting on the 14 inspection to document those results.
15 MS. WINSLOW: No. My question is, is this 16 the last chance that the public will have besides 17 written to make a verbal comment? I guess that was 18 all I really wanted to know.
19 MR. EADS: The short answer is the ACRS 20 would probably be your last formal opportunity, 21 although I do plan on conducting a safety meeting in 22 Washington later in the month of January. The public 23 will have a chance to listen in but not really to 24 participate.
25 MS. WINSLOW: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And if you want to 2 comment on the draft environmental impact statement 3 orally, that would be tonight.
4 MS. WINSLOW: One other quick question.
5 I guess after the final review -- you talk about after 6 the final review -- is that when the decision will be 7 made or will there be another process after that?
8 MR. KUGLER: After all of the inputs are 9 available to the Commission, then they make the 10 determination. They make the decision. So the time 11 frame for the review by the Advisory Committee on 12 Reactor Safeguards I think you said was September. So 13 it would have to be after that.
14 Our review should be completed by July 15 assuming we stay on schedule.
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
17 Any other process questions? Yes, ma'am? Just please 18 introduce yourself.
19 MS. HERBERT: I'm Sheila Herbert from New 20 London. I'm just wondering, what is the requirement 21 for publicizing the public hearings. And how do you 22 do that? How do you publicize it throughout 23 Connecticut?
24 MR. KUGLER: Okay. Well, first the term 25 "hearing" gets tossed out. This is a public meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 A hearing is generally a more formal affair than this.
2 The requirement, the basic requirement, is 3 to notice it in the Federal Register. Of course, I'm 4 sure everybody here reads the Federal Register every 5 day, but I don't.
6 The other way we approach it is we issue 7 a meeting notice. And that goes up on our Web site.
8 We also advertise in local newspapers. We put up 9 posters in the local area, trying to get the word out 10 as best we can to everybody.
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Do you have a 12 another follow-up?
13 MS. HERBERT: No. So this would be in the 14 Day and Hartford Courant, et cetera?
15 MR. KUGLER: I'm not sure which. Yes.
16 Okay. Yes, they're saying those papers.
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right.
18 MR. KUGLER: There is also a press 19 release, yes. But whether those get picked up by the 20 newspapers --
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Let's go on 22 to Ted Doerr, who is, as Andy mentioned, the team 23 leader for the environmental review team. He's from 24 Los Alamos National Lab run by the University of 25 California.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 DR. DOERR: Correct.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And Ted is an 3 ecologist, has a doctorate in wildlife and Fisheries 4 ecology.
5 DR. DOERR: Yes.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And I'll just turn 7 it over to you.
8 DR. DOERR: Thanks, Chip.
9 III. RESULTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 10 DR. DOERR: As Chip mentioned, I work for 11 the University of California at Los Alamos National 12 Laboratory. The NRC team consisted of NRC staff and 13 nine members from Los Alamos National Laboratory and 14 from Pacific Northwest National Lab.
15 The expertise we provided for the plant 16 relicensing and for the alternatives analysis of this 17 draft supplement environmental impact statement are 18 shown on this slide.
19 Next slide. This is a diagram of the 20 analysis process we used. The generic environmental 21 impact statement for license renewal, also known as 22 NUREG 1437, identifies 92 environmental issues that 23 are evaluated for license renewal.
24 Sixty-nine of the issues are considered 25 generic or category 1, which means that the impacts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 are the same for all reactors or the same for all 2 reactors with certain features, such as plants with 3 cooling towers.
4 For the other 23 issues, 21 are referred 5 to as category 2. The NRC found that the impacts were 6 not the same at all sites. And, therefore, 7 site-specific analysis was needed.
8 In addition, two issues were referred to 9 as not categorized. And, therefore, site-specific 10 analysis was also needed.
11 Only certain issues addressed in the 12 generic environmental impact statement are applicable 13 to Millstone. For those generic issues that are 14 applicable to Millstone, we assessed if there was any 15 new information related to the issue that might affect 16 the conclusion reached in the generic environmental 17 impact statement.
18 If there is no new information, then the 19 conclusions of the generic environmental impact 20 statement are adopted. If new information is 21 identified and determined to be significant, then a 22 site-specific analysis would be performed. For the 23 site-specific issues related to Millstone, 24 site-specific analysis also was performed.
25 Finally, during the scoping period, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 public was invited to provide information on potential 2 new issues. The team during its review looked to see 3 if there were any new issues that needed evaluation.
4 For each issue identified, the generic 5 environmental impact statement, an impact level is 6 assigned. These impact levels are consistent with the 7 Council on Environmental Quality.
8 For small impact, the effect is not 9 detectable or is too small to destabilize or 10 noticeably alter any important attribute of the 11 resource.
12 For a moderate impact, the effect is 13 sufficient to noticeably alter but not destabilize 14 important attributes of the resource.
15 And, finally, for a large impact, the 16 effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to not 17 only destabilize important resources but to put them 18 in a place where they will continually decline.
19 Next slide. When the team evaluated the 20 impacts from continued operations at Millstone, we 21 considered information from a wide variety of sources.
22 We considered what the licensee had to say in their 23 environmental report.
24 We conducted a site audit, during which we 25 toured the site. And also we reviewed documentation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 of the plant operations. And we interviewed the staff 2 and personnel from the plant. We also talked to 3 State, Federal, and local officials, as well as local 4 service agencies.
5 Lastly, we considered all of the comments 6 received from the public during the scoping period.
7 These comments are listed in appendix A of the draft 8 document along with NRC's responses.
9 The body of the information that is 10 contained in the supplement is the basis for the 11 analysis and the preliminary conclusions.
12 Chapter 2 of the draft supplemental 13 environmental impact statement discusses the plant and 14 the environment around the plant. In chapter 4, we 15 looked at the potential environmental impacts from an 16 additional 20 years from operation for Millstone Units 17 2 and 3. There are six issues, areas the team 18 reviewed and evaluated that are shown on this slide.
19 I will highlight the findings from each one of those 20 issues.
21 Entrainment, impingement, and heat shock 22 are category 2 issues used to assess the impact of 23 cooling systems to the aquatic community. Entrainment 24 is the process of aquatic organisms passing through 25 the debris screens at the intake and traveling through NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 the cooling system.
2 Impingement is the process of fish and 3 shellfish being drawn to the intake screens but are 4 too large to pass through the screens and are, 5 therefore, caught on them.
6 Heat shock is when aquatic organisms are 7 exposed to very high water temperatures resulting from 8 discharged water from the cooling system.
9 Non-contact cooling water from units 2 and 10 3 is withdrawn from Long Island Sound. When Units 2 11 and 3 are operating at full power, approximately 1.5 12 million gallons of water per minute are pumped through 13 the cooling system. This represents about three 14 percent of the tidal flow from the Niantic Bay near 15 Millstone. The Niantic River winter flounder 16 population has declined to low levels.
17 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 18 Administration, also known as NOAA Fisheries; the 19 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; 20 Dominion; and NRC staff all agree that the population 21 is being impacted by many different factors, including 22 over-fishing, environmental changes, and larval 23 entrainment from Millstone operations. However, there 24 is not agreement on the level of impact from 25 entrainment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 NRC staff reviewed all available 2 information and had discussions with NOAA Fisheries, 3 Department of Environmental Protection, Dominion 4 environmental staff, and others.
5 Based on the review and analysis, we 6 concluded that the available information does not 7 allow us to unequivocally link or decouple population 8 declines with Millstone operations. However, the 9 Niantic River stock is at a critically low level and 10 vulnerable to collapse and that entrainment from 11 Millstone operations is a contributing factor to 12 winter flounder mortality.
13 Therefore, we concluded that entrainment 14 would have a moderate impact to winter flounder 15 populations in Niantic Bay. Entrainment would have a 16 small impact to other populations of fish, shellfish, 17 and other aquatic organisms in Niantic Bay and Long 18 Island South.
19 Fish impingement mortality from Millstone 20 operations varies by species from low to high. Fish 21 populations with moderate and high impingement 22 mortality do not appear to have declined as a result 23 of Millstone operations. Therefore, impacts from 24 impingement are considered small.
25 Thermal impacts associated with Millstone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 operations have been studied since 1979. Eelgrass 2 beds in the vicinity of Millstone have not shown 3 evidence of influence from plant discharges. In 4 addition, discharges comply with the national 5 pollution discharge elimination system permit, also 6' known as NPDES, which is issued by the State 7 Department of Environmental Protection. Therefore, 8 impacts from heat shock are considered small.
9 There are four transmission lines that 10 connect Millstone to the transmission system.
11 Collectively, these lines cover approximately 115 12 miles. And the corridors that are maintained 13 encompass over 3,000 acres.
14 To protect the public from electric shock, 15 the lines were designed and constructed to meet the 16 National Electric Safety Code limit of not generating 17 an electrical current greater than 5 milliamperes 18 immediately underneath the lines.
19 Health effects from chronic exposure to 20 the electromagnetic fields were also considered in the 21 document. Based on a review of studies, the National 22 Institute of Environmental Health Science does not 23 believe that a cancer or non-cancer health outcomes 24 show sufficient evidence of a risk to currently 25 warrant a concern.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 Radiological impacts to the public and 2 workers are category 1 issues. We looked at the 3 effluent releases in monitoring program during our 4 site visit. We looked at how the gaseous and liquid 5 effluents were treated and released as well as how the 6 solid waste was treated, packaged, and shipped. We 7 also looked at how the applicant determines and 8 demonstrates that they are in compliance with the 9 regulation for release of radiological effluents.
10 Doses reported in the annual monitoring 11 reports for Millstone were less than .4 percent of the 12 dose limit specified in the regulations. The releases 13 from the plant are well within the limits. And the 14 resulting off-site potential doses are not expected to 15 increase on a year-to-year basis during the 20-year 16 license renewal term. Therefore, the impacts are 17 considered small.
18 We considered socioeconomic impacts to 19 housing, services, and off-site land use. Dominion 20 plans to add no more than five additional permanent 21 employees during license renewal. Based on Census 22 Bureau information, there are approximately 2.9 23 million people that currently live within 50 miles of 24 Millstone. The additional five workers represents a 25 negligible increase in the population.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 In 2000, there were about 178,000 housing 2 units, including about 16,800 vacant units.
3 Therefore, adding five workers would not affect the 4 availability, the value, or rental rates in the 5 existing housing market. Similarly, the water system 6 and road system can meet the increased demand 7 resulting from these additional workers.
8 Prior to deregulation, taxes paid by 9 Millstone represented about 69 percent of Waterford 10 tax revenue. In 2000, after deregulation, Dominion 11 taxes represented about 36 percent of Waterford tax 12 revenue.
13 Taxes paid by Dominion during the license 14 renewal period will represent about 25 to 30 percent 15 of Waterford tax revenues and would remain relatively 16 constant during that time period. Therefore, there 17 likely would be no change or only small changes in 18 off-site land use or development.
19 We evaluated whether minority and 20 low-income populations could be disproportionately and 21 adversely affected by the small impacts identified in 22 the previously discussed analyses of air, water, land, 23 and socioeconomics. We found no unusual resource 24 dependencies or practices, such as subsistence 25 farming, through which the population could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 disproportionately high and adversely affected.
2 In addition, we did not identify any 3 location-dependent disproportionately high and adverse 4 impacts affecting these minority and low-income 5 populations. Therefore, off-site impacts to minority 6 and low-income populations from continued operations 7 would be small.
8 There are several shallow wells on 9 Millstone's site. Only one of these wells is used, 10 and it is used to irrigate community ball fields.
11 This well withdraws less than 100 gallons per day.
12 There have been no indications that water 13 withdrawals by Millstone have had a significant impact 14 on the alluvial aquifer in the vicinity of the site.
15 Therefore, impacts are considered small.
16 Six terrestrial plant and animal species 17 and eight marine species that are Federally-listed as 18 threatened, endangered, or candidates are listing are 19 known to occur in the vicinity of Millstone's site.
20 Two Federally-listed endangered species, 21 the bald eagle and roseate tern, have been 22 occasionally observed at Millstone. However, neither 23 species nests at the site or in the vicinity of the 24 site or along the transmission line corridors.
25 Eight Federally-listed marine mammals have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 the potential to be in the vicinity of the Millstone 2 site. However, none of the Federally-listed species 3 have been sighted in the vicinity of the site. NRC's 4 preliminary conclusion is that the impacts of license 5 renewal would be small.
6 Informal consultation with U.S. Fish and 7 Wildlife Service and with NOAA Fisheries has been 8 initiated to receive concurrence on the NRC's 9 determination.
10 Dominion implemented a process to ensure 11 that information not addressed or available during the 12 generic environmental impact statement evaluation 13 would be reviewed so that such new and potentially 14 significant information related to renewal of the 15 license for Millstone would be considered.
16 As a part of the process, Dominion 17 reviewed each of the category 1 issues to verify the 18 conclusions of the- generic environmental impact 19 statement remained valid with respect to Millstone.
20 This review was performed by subject matter experts, 21 who were also familiar with NEPA issues.
22 The NRC staff also has a process for 23 identifying new and significant information. The 24 search for new information includes review of the 25 applicant's environmental report and their process for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 discovering and evaluating the significance of new 2 information; the review of records of public comments; 3 the review of environmental quality standards and 4 regulations; coordination with State, Federal, and 5 local environmental protection and resource agencies; 6 and review of the technical literature.
7 New information discovered by the staff is 8 evaluated for significance using the criteria set 9 forth in the generic environmental impact statement.
10 The category 1 issues, where new and 11 significant information is identified, reconsideration 12 of the conclusions for those issues is limited in 13 scope to the assessment of the relevant new, and 14 significant information. The scope of the assessment 15 does not include other facets of the issue that are 16 not affected by the new information.
17 As an example, during scoping, some 18 comments suggested that operation of Millstone 19 resulted in excess cancers in the population around 20 the plant. The NRC staff implemented the process 21 described above. No new and significant information 22 was identified as a result of these reviews.
23 The last issue that I would like to talk 24 about is related to cumulative impacts discussed in 25 chapter 4. These are impacts that are minor when NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 considered individually but potentially could be 2 significant when considered with other past, present, 3 or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless 4 of what agency or individuals undertake the action.
5 The staff considered cumulative impacts 6 resulting from operation of the cooling water system, 7 operation of the transmission lines, releases of 8 radiation- and radiological material, socioeconomic 9 impacts, groundwater use, and water quality impacts, 10 and threatened and endangered species. These impacts 11 were evaluated to the end of the 20-year license 12 renewal term.
13 It also should be noted that the 14 geographical boundary of the analysis was dependent 15 upon the resource itself. For instance, the area 16 analyzed for transmission lines was different than the 17 area analyzed for socioeconomics.
18 Our preliminary determination is that any 19 cumulative impacts resulting from the operation of the 20 Millstone plant during the license renewal period 21 would be small with the exception of entrainment, 22 which we established as moderate.
23 Next slide. Environmental issues 24 associated with the uranium fuel cycle, solid waste 25 management and decommissioning, are all category 1.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 Off-site radiological impacts and non-radiological 2 impacts are environmental issues related to the 3 uranium fuel cycle.
4 Environmental impacts associated with 5 solid waste management include storage and disposal of 6 non-radiological waste, low-level waste, and mixed 7 waste, on-site spent fuel storage and transportation 8 of spent fuel to a high-level waste repository.
9 Environmental issues considered for the 10 decommissioning are similar to those with operations 11 and, again, include radiation doses, air quality, 12 ecological resources, water quality, and 13 socioeconomics. No new and significant information 14 was identified. And impacts are considered small.
15 We evaluated a number of different 16 alternatives to Millstone. The no action alternative 17 is a scenario where the NRC would not renew the 18 Millstone operating licenses and Dominion would then 19 decommission Millstone when plant operations cease.
20 No replacement power was considered under this 21 alternative.
22 New. generation alternatives considered 23 included construction and operation of coal, natural 24 gas, and new nuclear power plants, both at the 25 Millstone site and at an alternative site, which would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 have been previously unused and undisturbed.
2 Another alternative considered was 3 purchasing power from other sources to replace the 4 power from Millstone if operations were to cease.
5 This power could come from within the State, from 6 other States, or from Canada or Mexico.
7 Alternative technologies considered 8 included oil-fired plants and renewable power sources, 9 such as wind power, solar power, hydropower, 10 geothermal, wood waste, other biomass-derived fuels, 11 municipal solid waste, fuel cells. And we also 12 reviewed and evaluated utility-sponsored conservation 13 measures.
14 While there are many possible combinations 15 of alternatives discussed to replace power, for 16 purposes of analysis, we assumed a combination of 17 alternatives which included natural gas-fired unit, 18 either at Millstone or an alternative site, along with 19 a combination of purchasing power from other 20 generators and additional conservation measures.
21 All of the alternatives have a potential 22 to result in environmental impacts larger than would 23 occur under the proposed action of license renewal.
24 As an example, if an alternative were selected at a 25 site outside of New London County, then socioeconomic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 impacts would be moderate to large as a result of lost 2 tax revenue for Waterford and an increase in service 3 required and a gain in tax revenue for the county with 4 new power generation.
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you 6 very much, Ted.
7 You have heard Ted go through a summary of 8 the findings in various areas and emphasize again that 9 this is a draft environmental impact statement and 10 won't be finalized until we hear from all of you in 11 terms of comments. -
12 Are there any questions on the findings, 13 the alternatives that we can answer before we go into 14 comments? Yes?
15 MS. MERRILL: This is Gail Merrill.
16 For clarification purposes, did you say 17 there are no new findings about the link between 18 cancer and nuclear reactor? Is that what you said or 19 did I misunderstand?
20 DR. DOERR: That's correct. There was no 21 new and significant information based on review.
22 MS. MERRILL: The Tumor Registry you 23 disregarded?
24 DR. DOERR: No, ma'am. There is a 25 discussion related to that information in chapter 4, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 specifically in section 4.7, which I think starts 2 around on page 4-51.
3 MS. MERRILL: So the fact that there are 4 higher cancer rates around Millstone Nuclear Reactor 5 than anywhere else in the State doesn't seem to cause 6 you any comment in the report? For 12 different 7 cancers, I might add.
8 MR. EMCH: Excuse me, Chip. Are we in tiie 9 question part of the presentation?
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Yes.
11 MR. EMCH: Okay.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: I think the questiion 13 14 MR. EMCH: It sounded like a comment to 15 me. Okay?
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Wait a 17 minute. Wait a minute. Okay? We're trying to answer 18 this question. We know there is an implied comment 19 there. Okay? The question I think goes to the fact 20 that, does the Tumor Registry show that there has been 21 this 12-fold increase?
22 MS. MERRILL: Excuse me. It's not a 23 12-fold increase. It's 12 different cancers, the 24 highest of which are around Millstone Nuclear Reactor 25 because New London County has the highest cancer.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 So I said to you, given these findings, I 2 don't understand how you could say that there is no 3 big link between cancer and Millstone.
4 MR. EMCH: Because we also looked at the 5 town data from the Tumor Registry. And Waterford is 6 not the highest. Waterford is considerably lower than 7 the surrounding towns.
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: So that' s the answer 9 to that question. If you have a comment or criticism 10 of that, then certainly that is why we are here, to 11 hear comments on that. Okay? But that was the answer 12 to the question.
13 MS. BESADE: Okay. I have a related 14 question.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Let me go to --
16 MS. NATUSCH: Lauren Natusch.
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Lauren?
18 MS. NATUSCH: Lauren Natusch from New 19 London.
20 When you were talking about endangered 21 species, you said' that there were no endangered 22 species in the vicinity of the site. And I wondered 23 how you define "in the vicinity."
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Ted?
25 DR. DOERR: What we looked at is besides NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 the site, we looked in areas where the activities from 2 Millstone operations might affect those species. Most 3 of the area near Millstone that is not directly on the 4 site is fairly built. And there is really not very 5 much habitat for the species to be in those locations 6 and nest, raise young, and those types of things.
7 So we didn't go out to a defined limit, 8 for example, 50 miles. We looked at it more from a 9 perspective of, is there habitat within a few miles 10 where noise or light from the operation or discharges 11 might reach the species that are there?
12 For the aquatic species, we looked for 13 observations or where the species might have been 14 found throughout Long Island Sound?
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Does that answer the 16 question for you, Lauren?
17 MS. NATUSCH: Yes, it does.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Great. We 19 have a question back here.
20 MS. BESADE: I'm Cynthia Besade from 21 Uncasville, Connecticut.
22 I would like to ask you, how did you 23 analyze the data from the Tumor Registry and come up 24 with what your conclusion is? You just stated that 25 Waterford had one of the lower stats. Well, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 stack is several hundred feet high. So whatever is 2 coming out of that is getting into whatever prevailing 3 winds are at that level and traveling.
4 How did you analyze those statistics and 5 come up with the fact that you don't think that there 6 is any correlation between your emissions of radiation 7 and cancer in this community? How?
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Can we talk a little 9 bit to the methodology? And, Rich, I know it's hard 10 for you to talk now, and also it might be really 11 detailed, but if you could try to answer that? But 12 also if you can point Cynthia to something in the 13 document that explains the methodology behind the 14 finding, that would be helpful.
15 MS. BESADE: Okay. I also asked 16 specifically since others --
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, we need to 18 get you on the record.
19 MS. BESADE: Pardon me. Specifically, 20 since other people analyzed the same data and came up 21 with the exact opposite conclusion.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And that is a 23 comment. If there are other people who analyzed the 24 same data and came up with an opposite conclusion, 25 then please submit that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 MS. BESADE: It was an add-on to the 2 question I asked you of how.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Please submit that 4 to us. Now we're going to go to the how.
5 MS. BESADE: Well, I submit that to you.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
7 MR. EMCH: We started by looking at the 8 effluent releases from the plant. And then we looked 9 at the environmental monitoring results. As I stated 10 earlier, the results from the effluent releases are 11 less than one millirem to anybody off-site, less than 12 one millirem.
13 When we looked at the environmental 14 monitoring data, almost all of it was nondetectable.
15 MS. BESADE: I see.
16 MR. EMCH: And there are dose calculations 17 for the tall stack. And then when I went to the Tumor 18 Registry information and some of the information that 19 was presented by you folks at the scoping report and 20 I saw the information on the county-wide information 21 that you were talking about and that Mr. Steinberg was 22 talking about and then I looked at the data for the 23 city, for the towns, it's not that Waterford was on 24 the low end. They were just not the top in any 25 category, really.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 And in some of the categories where New 2 London County has been high, the Town of Waterford 3 wasn't very high. So that was what my basis was.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And if you have a 5 criticism of that methodology as it's laid out in the 6 draft environmental impact statement, please comment 7 on that. If there is any information that you can 8 offer us that shows that that methodology, that 9 analysis is incorrect, please offer it to us.
10 And we are going to go to other questions 11 now, Cynthia.
12 MS. BESADE: One more question.
13 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
14 MS. BESADE: One more question.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, listen.
16 Hey, we're going to go to-other questions. And then 17 when we get to comment, if you have a comment, you can 18 make it.
19 MS. BESADE: He talks about analysis and 20 what was on the stats. He's not specific how this was 21 analyzed. If you're not being specific about what 22 came out of the stack --
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Is that specificity 24 in the document?
25 MS. BESADE: No.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234-4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 MR. EMCH: I don't think so. The 2 specificity on that area is not in the document. Some 3 of it, much of it, is in the reports of the licensee 4 that we used as reference material.
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And since we're in 6 the comment part now, if you don't think that there is 7 enough specificity -- okay? Let me see if there are 8 other questions.
9 MS. BESADE: That's quite all right. I --
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Yes. We understand 11 what your problem is with what he said.
12 MS. BESADE: Yes?
13 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Yes, that you don't 14 think there is enough specificity. Now we're going to 15 go right here.
16 MS. BESADE: You are completely ignoring 17 the implication. That is what I think.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Let's go on 19 to a question here.
20 MS. BESADE: That's fine. I want you to 21 understand that.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We understand. We 23 understand. Thank you.
24 MS. HERBERT: This is a follow-up. I'm 25 wondering, what geographic area did you decide upon on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 this issue and why? I mean, you're saying Waterford.
2 Millstone is close to a lot of communities.
3 MR. EMCH: I don't remember all of the 4 details, but I did do some looking at the towns around 5 it as well. But coming back for a moment to the 6 county data, there were a number of instances where 7 New London County had the highest in the State amongst 8 all of the counties, but, again, looking at it, it 9 wasn't like they were hugely bigger than other 10 counties. They were maybe a little bit bigger. So it 11 was really like they were slightly above average.
12 And this is data that I have examined.
13 This is data that has been examined by others that we 14 regard as credible and that we just didn't see it as 15 being any indication of excess cancers.
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: But the other part 17 of the analysis that you did mention is that you 18 looked at the actual emissions from the plant.
19 MR. EMCH: Right. One thing that we 20 didn't talk much about earlier was the CASE study, the 21 Connecticut Academy of Sciences Engineering I think it 22 is, that was commissioned by the NEAC group here. It 23 was principally commissioned for the Haddam Neck 24 plant.
25 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Can you just tell us NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 what NEAC is so everybody understands what that body 2 is? And John Markowicz --
3 MR. EMCH: Nuclear --
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: You know, Cynthia, 5 I am going to have to ask you to stop interrupting.
6 MS. BESADE: I'm sorry. We're --
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, we have 8 been going to you --
9 MS. BESADE: I'm not --
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, please stop 11 interrupting. Okay? We have been listening to you, 12 to your comments. We have been trying to answer your 13 questions. And now that is what we are trying to do.
14 MS. BESADE: You need --
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: So can you just stop 16 interrupting the whole meeting. We will get to you 17 when this explanation is done.
18 What is NEAC?
19 MR. MARKOWICZ: NEAC is a Connecticut 20 statute that was adopted in 1996. Andrew Stillman and 21 Melodie Peters, who were here this afternoon, were 22 very instrumental in doing the restart process.
23 It stands for Nuclear Energy Advisory 24 Council. It's 15 citizens of the State of Connecticut 25 -- I'm one of the co-chairs -- that meet regularly.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 We met four times last year. I'll make some comments 2 on that later.
3 And we basically track what's happening at 4 Millstone, what is happening at Connecticut Yankee.
5 And I try just to keep an eye on operations and to 6 keep on public health and safety associated with those 7 operations.
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Now we're going to 9 go back to the study, NEAC. And if there is something 10 else, we will go to you.
11 MS. BESADE: Thank you.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: You're welcome.
13 MR. EMCH: It was specifically chartered 14 to look at Haddam Neck, as I recall. What they did 15 was very careful analysis of Haddam Neck effluent data 16 and Haddam Neck cancer statistics, again, from the 17 Cancer Registry, Tumor Registry.
18 They did not analyze Millstone effluents, 19 but what they did do was they looked at the Tumor 20 Registry data for all of the towns. And they drew the 21 same conclusion, that there was no evidence of excess 22 cancers.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Cynthia?
24 Okay.
25 MR. EMCH: Cancer is not an unusual NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 occurrence.
2 MS. BESADE: No, but --
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, do you 4 understand the concept that it's a fact that we're 5 trying to at least do this systematically. And we 6 want to have you --
7 MS. BESADE: I understand --
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We want to have you 9 on the record. And you have to be talking into a 10 microphone. Okay?
11 MS. BESADE: You didn't --
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: I was. And then you 13 said you were going to defer.
14 MS. BESADE: You were --
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. We'll do 16 that. And then we'll be back to you. And you can get 17 it right in here so that it goes --
18 MS. BESADE: How does --
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: -- into the 20 transcript.
21 Yes?
22 MS. WINSLOW: My question is about this 23 study with Haddam Neck. Haddam Neck shut down in 24 1996. And, besides which, it was only one reactor, 25 and we had three operating here. So the study is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202). 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 .(202). 234-4433
48 1 totally irrelevant to Waterford and Millstone.
2 MS. BESADE: Thank you. That's exactly 3 what I wanted to say.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Any comment on that?
5 MS. WINSLOW: When was my question? When 6 was the study about --
7 MR. EMCH: I don't remember the time 8 period. And we can look that up. I don't remember 9 the time period.
10 MS. WINSLOW: Haddam Neck shut down in 11 1996.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We're going to get 13 to you.
14 MS. WINSLOW: Haddam was shut down in 15 1996. So there weren't any airborne emissions at that 16 point other than the radioactive waste that was still 17 there.
18 MR. EMCH: Okay. I'll try to look it up 19 for you.
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And I think Rich 21 said this was one factor, supporting factor. Okay.
22 It was a January 2001 report. Okay? And that's all 23 it says here. I don't know what else is in that.
24 Someone? John? All right. Do you want 25 to go up there because I am going to go back here and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 allow Cynthia to get something on the record.
2 MR. MARKOWICZ: Your statement, Gerry, is 3 correct. It was site-specific to Haddam, but it was 4 for the operating life of the reactor. It was looking 5 for total discharge from the stack --
6 MS. WINSLOW: Still I --
7 MR. MARKOWICZ: I'm just trying to answer 8 your question.
9 -- for the time period that it was done.
10 And it was done not by NEAC. It was done by CASE as 11 an independent entity. They issued a report. The 12 report is documented in the annual NEAC report for 13 that year. And you can probably either get it --
14 well, I don't know whether you can get it online, but 15 you can get it from the State. And it's there.
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Now, Cynthia, 17 do you have another question about this?
18 MS. BESADE: I do. I do.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Then let's --
20 MS. BESADE: One question. Okay? Who 21 paid for this study?
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: The CASE, 23 Connecticut Academy of Sciences, study?
24 MS. BESADE: The study that you're talking 25 about that was done concentrating on Haddam Neck. Who NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 paid for that study?
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Let's get 3 this on the record. I guess that John Markowicz is 4 going to answer.
5 MR. MARKOWICZ: Yes. This is John 6 Markowicz again. I'm the co-chair of the Nuclear 7 Energy Advisory Council.
8 I'm not sure what the composition of CASE 9 is, but they are funded by the State of Connecticut.
10 And they take requests for organizations like the 11 Nuclear Energy Advisory Council for tasking. And they 12 perform tasking pursuant to those requests. But we 13 did not provide them any funding, nor did the utility.
14 You paid for it.
15 MS. BESADE: Are you sure that the former 16 owner of the utility did not contribute to this?
17 MR. MARKOWICZ: Nancy, listen to what I 18 said.
19 MS. BESADE: It's Cynthia, sir.
20 MR. MARKOWICZ: Cynthia, Cynthia. The 21 State of Connecticut funds CASE. You paid for the 22 study.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Do you have 24 a question?
25 MS. MERRILL: Yes. I have a question for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 you, sir. This is Gail Merrill.
2 I would like to know if Connecticut funded 3 that study, why doesn't Connecticut fund the tooth 4 fairy project, like other states have done, to 5 document the strontium-90 in our baby teeth around 6 Millstone area, to document the cancer?
7 MR. MARKOWICZ: I'll certainly bring it up 8 at the next meeting.
9 MS. MERRILL: I would appreciate it.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
11 Thank you, John.
12 Other questions about the findings and the 13 draft environmental impact statement before we move 14 on?
15 (No response.)
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 17 Ted. We're going to have a presentation on the 18 specialized part of the environmental impact 19 statement, something called severe accident mitigation 20 alternatives analysis, SAMA.
21 We have Bob Palla with us. He is a senior 22 reactor engineer. He has been with the agency for 23 over 20 years, has a Bachelor's and Master's in 24 mechanical engineering, University of Maryland, expert 25 on severe accident analysis and something called NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 probablistic risk analysis. And he did the SAMA 2 analysis for this license renewal application.
3 Bob?
4 MR. PALLA: Okay. My name is Bob Palla.
5 I'm with the Probablistic Safety Assessment Branch at 6 NRC.
7 I'm going to be discussing the 8 environmental impacts of postulated accidents. These 9 impacts are described in section 5 of the generic 10 environmental impact statement, or commonly called the 11 GEIS.
12 The GEIS evaluates two classes of 13 accidents: design basis accidents and severe 14 accidents. Design basis accidents are those accidents 15 that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to 16 ensure that the plant can safely respond to a broad 17 spectrum of postulated accidents without risk to the 18 public.
19 The ability of the plant to withstand 20 these accidents has to be demonstrated before the 21 plant is granted a licensee. Since a licensee has to 22 demonstrate acceptable plant performance for the 23 design basis accidents throughout the life of the 24 plant, the Commission has determined that the 25 environmental impact of design basis accidents are of NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 8 _, 234-4433
_ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 small significance.
2 Neither the licensee nor the NRC is aware 3 of any new and significant information on the 4 capability of the Millstone plant to withstand design 5 basis accidents. Therefore, the staff concludes that 6 there are no impacts related to the design basis 7 accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
8 The second category of accidents evaluated 9 in the GEIS are severe accidents. They are by 10 definition more severe than design basis accidents 11 because they can result in substantial damage to the 12 reactor core.
13 The Commission found in the GEIS that the 14 risk of a severe accident is small for all plants.
15 And by this, I mean the probablistic weighted 16 consequences.
17 Nevertheless, the Commission determined 18 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 19 considered for all plants that have not done so.
20 The SAMA evaluation, which is what I am 21 going to be focused'on here in a minute, is a 22 site-specific assessment and is a category 2 issue, as 23 explained earlier. The SAMA review for Millstone 24 Units 2 and 3 is summarized in section 5.2 of the GEIS 25 supplement and is described in more detail in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 appendices H and I of the GEIS supplement.
2 The purpose of performing the SAMA 3 evaluation is to ensure that plant changes with the 4 potential for improving severe accident safety 5 performance are identified and evaluated.
6 The scope of the potential improvements 7 that were considered include hardware modifications, 8 procedure changes, and training program improvements.
9 The scope includes SAMAs that would prevent core 10 damage as well as SAMAs that would improve containment 11 performance given that a core damage event occurs.
12 A SAMA evaluation consists of a four-step 13 process. The first step is to characterize overall 14 plant risk and leading contributors to risk. This 15 typically involves extensive use of the plant-specific 16 probabilistic risk assessment study.
17 The second step in the evaluation is to 18 identify potential improvements that could further 19 reduce risk. Information from the PRA, such as the 20 dominant accident sequences, is used to help identify 21 plant improvements that would have the greatest impact 22 in reducing risk.
23 The third step in the evaluation is to 24 quantify the risk reduction potential and the 25 implementation costs for each improvement. The risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 reduction and the implementation costs for each SAMA 2 is typically estimated using a bounding analysis.
3 The risk reduction is generally 4 overestimated by assuming that the plant improvement 5 is completely effective in eliminating the accident 6 sequences it is intended to address. And the 7 implementation costs are generally underestimated by 8 neglecting certain cost factors.
9 The risk reduction estimates and cost 10 estimates are used in the final step to determine 11 whether implementation of any of the improvements can 12 be justified.
13 In determining whether an improvement is 14 justified, we look at three factors. The first is 15 whether the improvement is cost-beneficial. In other 16 words, is the estimated benefit greater than the 17 estimated implementation costs of the SAMA?
18 The second factor is whether the 19 improvement provides a significant reduction in total 20 risk.
21 And the third factor is whether the risk 22 reduction is associated with aging effects during the 23 period of extended operation, in which case if it was 24 we would consider implementation as part of the 25 license renewal process.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 The preliminary results of the Millstone 2 SAMA evaluation are summarized on this slide.
3 Approximately 190 candidate improvements were 4 identified for each of the operating units based on 5 review of the plant-specific PRAs, relevant industry 6 and NRC studies on severe accidents, and SAMA analyses 7 performed for other plants.
8 The licensee reduced the number of 9 candidates SAMA has based on a multi-step screening 10 process. This screening resulted in a set of 44 SAMAs 11 for Unit 2 and 52 SAMAs for Unit 3.
12 A more detailed assessment of the 13 conceptual design and costs was then performed for 14 each of the remaining SAMAs. This is described in 15 detailed in appendices H and I of the GEIS supplement.
16 The detailed cost-benefit analysis shows 17 that one SAMA would be cost-beneficial at Unit 2.
18 This SAMA involves enhancing the procedure for loss of 19 the reactor building closed cooling water system with 20 the objective of cooling down and depressurizing the 21 reactor prior to the onset of reactor coolant pump 22 seal failure.
23 Two additional SAMAs could be 24 cost-beneficial if they can be implemented without a 25 hardware modification. The first SAMA, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 applicable to Unit 2, involves using a portable 2 generator to energize the field on the emergency 3 diesel generator, allowing the generator to be started 4 in a station blackout event or restarted after battery 5 depletion.
6 The second SAMA, which is applicable to 7 Unit 3, involves developing a procedure for manually 8 operating and controlling the turbine-driven auxiliary 9 feedwater pump when control power is lost. This would 10 assure continued heat removal from the reactor through 11 the steam generators.
12 In summary, the results of the SAMA 13 evaluation indicate that three SAMAs are potentially 14 cost-beneficial. However, none of the cost-beneficial 15 SAMAs are related to managing the effects of plant 16 aging. Accordingly, these SAMAs are not required to 17 be implemented at Millstone as part of license 18 renewal.
19 Although not required as part of license 20 renewal, Dominion plans to further evaluate these 21 SAMAs and complete any implementation prior to the 22 period of extended operation.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And, Bob, when you 24 say, "prior to the period of extended operation," that 25 means before if the license was renewed before that or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 .(202).234-4433
58 1
2 MR. PALLA: Well, what I meant and what 3 you might think may be different.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
5 MR. PALLA: But I thought it was if you 6 did not extend the operating license, that it would be 7 the end of the duration of the current license.
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: I just wanted to 9 make sure people knew what that meant.
10 Are there questions on this? And this is 11 Mr. Schwartz?
12 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Doug Schwartz, New 13 London.
14 Were there SAMA issues involved in the 15 decision to close Millstone 1? And if so, could you 16 enumerate them?
17 MR. PALLA: No. The SAMA analysis is kind 18 of for major Federal actions. This was not an 19 analysis that was being done for Millstone 1. So it's 20 not an artifact of the SAMA analysis. I don't know 21 what considerations went into it, but I don't believe 22 it was severe accident mitigation alternative 23 considerations.
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thanks, Bob.
25 Yes?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 MS. HERBERT: On the first one, not 2 related to managing the effects of aging, would it be 3 related to updating; in other words, modernizing, 4 whatever?
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Can you just perhaps 6 give an example of what they were -- if they're not 7 related to aging, what are they related to I guess is
.8 sort of the question.
9 MS. HERBERT: If you say, "aging," it 10 sounds like deterioration; whereas, if the plant is 11 older, it wouldn't be what a modern plant would look 12 like is what I am thinking.
13 MR. PALLA: Well, what we were trying to 14 say here was that as we look through the set of --
15 let's say there were some potentially cost-beneficial 16 improvements.
17 If some of these related to replacement of 18 a component that has a high failure rate because it 19 had been in the plant since it was originally started 20 up and there is an increased likelihood of failure, if 21 that was showing up in the risk assessment as an 22 important contributor and we flagged that as a 23 cost-beneficial enhancement, then this would be in the 24 category of -- it- would be related to managing the 25 effects of aging because aging is contributing to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 failure of these components.
2 But I think that the procedures in the 3 enhancements that we identified here are equally valid 4 today as part of just normal operations. It's not 5 related to aging. So we did not consider these to be 6 linked to the license renewal. What we were trying to 7 do is single out things that may be related to 8 allowing the plant to operate for 20 more years.
9 FACILITATOR CAMERON: If someone wanted to 10 read about these individual SAMAs, they are in the 11 draft environmental impact statement?
12 MR. PALLA: They're in chapter 5 of the 13 main body and in a couple of the appendices --
14 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. That may give 15 you an idea by looking at that of what these are 16 related to.
17 Any other questions on the SAMAs? Yes?
18 MS. WINSLOW: Well, I don't have a 19 question on the SAMA, but are you done about the 20 postulated accidents? Are you finished with that 21 part? Because I have a question on that.
22 MR. PALLA: Yes, yes.
23 MS. WINSLOW: I noticed that you talk 24 about things that could happen with the reactor, but 25 you don't mention any fires in the spent fuel pool or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 any act by a malicious individual on the spent fuel 2 pool.
3 And those are accidents that would still 4 be possible with Millstone in the license renewal 5 period, whether it was in the wet storage of the 6 proposed dry cask storage.
7 Either one we're still open to malicious 8 individuals. And there will be more of that as the 9 plant goes into the new period. There will be more of 10 the waste. So it would increase the risk there. And 11 you don't mention that at all.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
13 MS. WINSLOW: Gerry Winslow.
14 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Gerry Winslow.
15 Thank you, Gerry.
16 MR. PALLA: Okay. Well, if I can put the 17 malicious act aside and let me just talk about the 18 spent fuel pool and then I'll come back to the 19 malicious act aspects. What we use is as kind of a 20 tool to focus our attention on where might the biggest 21 bang for the buck be in risk reduction, it is with the 22 -- we use extensively the probablistic risk assessment 23 study.
24 So, in effect, I can take your question 25 and translate it into a different question. Are these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 kinds of acts considered in the probablistic risk 2 assessment that we use to help guide this review?
3 The answer is that we do not see that 4 spent fuel pools are significant contributors to risk 5 in the models that we used. This did not consider the 6 malicious acts.
7 Now, the kinds of acts that, instead, are 8 considered in the spent fuel accidents are seismic 9 events, cask-drop accidents, events that could lead to 10 pool drain-down.
11 There have been other studies done, 12 generic studies and plant-specific studies, that would 13 support a conclusion that the risk from those types of 14 events, again putting aside the malicious acts, the 15 risk from those types of events, is quite small 16 relative to the risk from the operating plants.
17 So when we focus our attention on where 18 can we best reduce the risk, we do not end up looking 19 at the spent fuel pool. We end up looking at the 20 reactor, the operating plant, because it is considered 21 to have a higher level of risk.
22 Now, the question about malicious acts for 23 the spent fuel pool and for the reactor, for that 24 matter, this is outside the scope of the study that we 25 use. It's not in the PRA.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 These kinds of events really defy being 2 able to be quantified in terms of probabilities. And 3 these are being addressed as part of current operating 4 plant issues. There's a major effort looking at those 5 kinds of threats. And there are additional 6 requirements that have been put in place at plants to 7 address them.
8 But as far as this search for 9 cost-beneficial enhancements, that is not included.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 11 Bob.
12 Another question?
13 MS. HERBERT: Yes. Sheila Herbert.
14 Malicious acts are not considered in this 15 study for relicensing? That's a clarifying question.
16 MR. PALLA: Well, I'm answering for the 17 severe accident mitigation alternatives. We did not 18 specifically look for improvements to deal with those 19 types of events.
20 MS. HERBERT: At some stage in the 21 relicensing process, will that be considered, acts by 22 malicious individuals?
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Let us get a broader 24 answer to that question. Andy?
25 MR. KUGLER: This is Andy Kugler.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 The issue of malicious acts in general is 2 currently being addressed by the Commission. In the 3 wake of September 11th, obviously we initiated a study 4 to look at what we considered to be the design basis 5 threat against the plants, what measures licensees are 6 required to take.
7 Now, a lot of steps have already been 8 taken at all of the plants. The staff issued orders 9 for certain activities. And a number of enhancements 10 have already been made. And the staff is continuing 11 to study whether additional changes should be made.
12 But this is all part of the operative plant today.
13 It's not something we're waiting on license renewal 14 for.
15 Because that program will be maintained 16 throughout the life of the plant, however long that 17 life may be. We don't address it specifically in 18 license renewal. It's being addressed today. Is that 19 __
20 MS. HERBERT: Yes.
21 MR. KUGLER: Okay.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right. Thank 23 you very much.
24 Mr. Schwartz?
25 MR. SCHWARTZ: First, I have a question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 We're going to be able to provide comments later on, 2 right?
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Yes.
4 MR. SCHWARTZ: I want to address what you 5 just said and what that gentleman just said. But it 6 is an environmental impact if a terrorist attack, for 7 example, releases -- and I have a big problem. That 8 is my principal concern for coming tonight. The 9 gentleman up there said you cannot quantify it, and 10 that is correct.
11 But I think that the way I would quantify 12 it is very high. You quantify it looking pre-9/11 in 13 the report. And you use the word "small" and you 14 define small. I think that is a big error.
15 I realize that the NRC is addressing it, 16 but I think that it has to be in an environmental 17 impact statement because it is the biggest threat to 18 the environment, far greater than any of these SAMAs.
19 MR. KUGLER: Okay. This is Andy Kugler 20 again.
21 I understand what you are saying. I guess 22 what I am trying to say is that the Commission has 23 continued to work toward addressing the issue of the 24 actual threat from outside the plant.
25 What the severe accident review is looking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 at is okay. If there is a severe accident of some 2 sort, what threats do those pose to the public? What 3 systems are we relying on to mitigate the event? And 4 are there ways we can improve that mitigation?
5 So I guess what I am trying to say is that 6 the aspect of the likelihood and how we prevent 7 attacks by outsiders is being addressed by the 8 Commission and will be addressed in an ongoing manner.
9 It's not something that we're waiting on for license 10 renewal.
11 So that is being addressed. And it will 12 be addressed, I would assume, before either of these 13 plants' licenses expire. We're talking ten years from 14 now before the first one expires.
15 And then in terms of the events themselves 16 -- and, Palla, correct me if I am wrong in this 17 regard, but the spectrum of the range of events that 18 we look at is almost unlimited in terms of how bad 19 things could get.
20 We try and look for what is the worst 21 thing that can happen and how do you get there, what 22 things have to fail. And so we look at that 23 perspective already when we're looking for severe 24 accident mitigation alternatives.
25 So I think in that regard, to some extent, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 we really are already looking at what is the worst 2 thing that could happen to the plant. And then 3 separately we're addressing how do we prevent somebody 4 outside trying to get in to let that happen.
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 6 Andy.
7 We have one more piece of information from 8 Barry Zalcman from NRC staff.
9 MR. ZALCMAN: Thanks, Chip.
10 Let me expand upon what Andy just referred 11 to. He is addressing the security issues associated 12 with the post-9/11 environment and the activities that 13 the Commission has undertaken. But this issue of 14 considering terrorist acts or malevolent acts in the 15 context of NEPA is something that has been before the 16 Commission already.
17 And, for your benefit, the Commission, in 18 fact, has ruled on this, that the staff will not 19 consider acts of terrorism in our NEPA reviews.
20 Now, to give you a citation, Nancy, if I 21 say, "CLI 0224" or "CLI 0225," those are cases before 22 the Commission already where they had considered in 23 the post-9/11 environment whether or not to consider 24 terrorism in NEPA.
25 And, as Bob had phrased it, these are
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 unquantifiable events. They are remote. They are 2 speculative. And the guidance within consideration of 3 issues under NEPA is a rule of reason. And what we 4 find are terrorist acts are not quantifiable to have 5 any meaning in putting them in context.
6 That came before the Commission already.
7 The Commission has already passed judgment on that.
8 So until the Commission changes its view, the staff 9 cannot look at this issue.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Barry, if anybody 11 wanted a copy of that Commission opinion to read more 12 about it, we could get them a copy of it. And also, 13 even though what you say is true on the NEPA side, I 14 don't want anybody to leave here and think that that 15 means that it isn't going to be reviewed, the security 16 issue, on the safety side.
17 MR. ZALCMAN: Absolutely, Chip. And 18 that's why I referred to Andy's point as we are 19 addressing security issues in the post-9/11 20 environment. We are not waiting for license renewal 21 to address those issues. They are being addressed 22 every day. And as we gain new insight, additional 23 orders, additional rule changes are likely to be 24 forthcoming as well.
25 The CLI that I referred to as a Commission NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 decision, certainly if you go to the NRC Web site, you 2 look under the Commission, you will see, well, the 3 decisions '02 are 2002 and 2-4 is the case, 2-5 is 4 also the case. It's 2-4, 2-5, two cases back to back 5 where the Commission ruled on this.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you. And I 7 think Gerry has a question.
8 MS. WINSLOW: A follow-up.
9 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right.
10 MS. WINSLOW: Just I wanted to go back to 11 where I was before. Aside from the malicious thing I 12 brought up -- I'm sorry I did at this point -- I still 13 feel that the spent fuel pool having an accident on 14 its own without anybody provoking it is still not a 15 severe accident in your report. And so I have a 16 contention with that. I just wanted to bring up that 17 point.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And, Bob, not 19 right now perhaps, but I think that you referred to 20 the other studies that looked at the risk from spent 21 fuel pools. And that may be information that would be 22 useful for you.
23 MS. WINSLOW: My point is you are adding 24 20 more years of spent fuel to this mix of what you 25 have already got. So it is going to increase the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 . . 234-4433 (202)
70 1 risk.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Bob, do you want to 3 say anything?
4 MR. PALLA: Well, I guess the study that 5 comes to mind is that for purposes of decommissioning, 6 I guess we are going to make a risk-informed rule for 7 decommissioning, did a detailed technical study on 8 spent fuel pool risks. It's documented in NUREG 1738, 9 I believe, familiar with that.
10 The risk was very low. The risk was lower 11 than from operating plants, again limited to 12 normal-type accidents, not terrorist-type events.
13 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
14 Thank you very much. I think we are going to go to 15 the public comment part of the meeting at this point, 16 but Andy has some important information for you.
17 MR. KUGLER: Okay. Thank you, Chip.
18 Very briefly, on the preliminary 19 conclusions, as we discussed, we concluded that the 20 impacts of license renewal in almost all areas are 21 small. The one exception is a moderate impact of 22 entrainment on the winter flounder.
23 Now, the conclusion on threatened and 24 endangered species is preliminary in the sense that we 25 have initiated informal consultation with Fish and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 Wildlife Services and NOAA Fisheries. And we need to 2 complete that consultation.
3 In contrast for the alternatives, for all 4 of the alternatives we consider, there are 5 environmental impacts in at least some impact areas 6 that rise to a moderate or large significance level.
7 So our preliminary recommendation is that the adverse 8 impacts of license renewal are not so great as to make 9 license renewal unreasonable.
10 Talking a little bit about schedule, as we 11 indicated, the draft environmental impact statement 12 was issued in December. Our comment period on the 13 draft ends on March 2nd of this year. And we expect 14 to issue the final environmental impact statement in 15 July.
16 The agency point of contact is Richard 17 Emch. He would normally be speaking now, but he's 18 lost his voice. But this gives his phone number. You 19 can call it if you.have any further questions.
20^ In addition, you can look at paper copies 21 of the documents at these two libraries: the 22 Waterford Public Library and the Thames River Campus 23 Library at the Three Rivers Community College.
24 I'm not sure. We did bring copies with 25 us. I'm not sure if there are any left in the back.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 So if you want to pick one up, there are a few copies 2 left in the back as well.
3 In addition, as mentioned previously, the 4 draft environmental impact statement is available on 5 our Web site at the address given here.
6 IV. HOW COMMENTS CAN BE SUBMITTED 7 MR. KUGLER: Finally, we'll turn to 8 submitting comments. You can submit comments by mail 9 to the address given here. If, for some reasons 10 you're not in the Rockville area and you can't afford 11 to deliver comments in person and you want to send 12 your comments via e-mail, then use the address given 13 here, millstoneeis@nrc.gov. So we are trying to give 14 you multiple methods of providing comments.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Do you have the 16 information? All right.
17 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS 18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We're going to go to 19 public comment now, but let us make sure that this 20 microphone is working.
21 Okay. We're going to listen to some of 22 your more formal comments at this point. There were 23 issues raised during the questions and answers. There 24 were also comments. And we will look carefully at 25 those to make sure we consider those as comments.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 Betsy Ritter, Representative Betsy Ritter?
2 Is she here? Betsy? Come up here. I'm sorry.
3 MS. RITTER: Thank you. I will mostly be 4 brief because it is my understanding it's continuing 5 to snow. I want to just start by thanking the NRC and 6 the Town of Waterford for the time that they have put 7 into allowing this to be here in the host community as 8 well as making provision to allow everybody the time 9 this afternoon and this evening to come in and 10 comment.
11 I also want to thank everyone who came 12 tonight because it is a very important part of our 13 process that this be very public and very open. The 14 questions that you raise are important to the process.
15 And, one way or another, I think that it's a critical 16 affirmation of the openness that we are trying to 17 achieve here.
18 I want to speak in support of the 19 relicensing effort by the power plant. The Town of 20 Waterford, the surrounding communities, as well as the 21 State of Connecticut have very clearly benefitted from 22 its presence herein Waterford for many years.
23 I know that this is a very lengthy process 24 and I think that it -- and it is an expensive process, 25 of course, for everybody, the State, the town, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 emotionally. We have heard a lot of testimony tonight 2 to that effect. And it's a sort of, as I said, a 3 tribute or an affirmation to our process we let that 4 happen, but I also feel very strongly that, as I said, 5 not just the town and the communities, but the State 6 are benefitted by the presence of the power plant and 7 the extension of the license.
8 One way or another, we need electricity.
9 We need electricity to conduct our businesses. We 10 have set up a huge infrastructure. Our huge way of 11 living is dependent on this. And we can continue to 12 explore the many, many other alternatives, alternate 13 power sources. And we should do that, but it's 14 undeniable that, certainly at this point in time, this 15 is what we have to go ahead and do. And I want to 16 support it.
17 Thank you.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, 19 Representative.
20 Next we're going to go to Brian, Brian 21 Vachris from the Town of Waterford. Brian?
22 MR. VACHRIS: I'm glad everyone could show 23 up tonight. I'm Brian Vachris. I'm on the town Board 24 of Finance. I'm not officially speaking for the 25 board, but we do have some concerns about the fact NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 that there would be a tremendous loss of tax revenues 2 if these plants were to close.
3 I might also mention that I'm a nuclear 4 test engineer at Electric Boat Corporation. So I am 5 a little bit familiar with the design and operation of 6 these plants.
7 I haven't had time to review the 2,900 8 pages of submittal that were in the application. If 9 I do see anything that I need to comment on in 10 writing, I will do so before the date. I don't know 11 that I will, though. The parts that I have read look 12 fine to me.
13 One of the statements that was made 14 earlier perhaps should be slightly corrected regarding 15 the town's finances. Low rates are based on the grand 16 list, not just on tax revenues because some taxes come 17 from other sources of taxation, such as income or 18 sales tax, and are distributed by the State from the 19 State general funds.
20 As far as the town goes, Millstone 21 currently represents about 51 percent of the grand 22 list. And there we're looking at property taxes. So 23 effectively if the plant weren't there, the tax rate 24 would be doubled, projecting forward to 2015. It's 25 about the 34 percent of the grand list.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 So, again, the tax rate that we're 2 projecting for that year forward, which are kind of 3 far-out projections, would be 50 percent higher. And 4 at the town's current level of expenditures, we would 5 see tax rates and mill rates in the high 30s, just so 6 that all of you who are residents of Waterford are 7 aware of the importance of the power plants to the 8 town in terms of its tax base.
9 I guess one of the other things that I 10 might say is that there are a lot of people in this 11 community who are familiar with the nuclear industry.
12 They are not only the employees at Millstone, but 13 they're also employees at Electric Boat and people who 14 are employees at the local submarine base of the 15 United States Navy.
16 This community supports nuclear power.
17 And there are people. And I have been in some of 18 these hearings before, and I have seen some of these 19 people before who are very much against it. But the 20 bulk of the community and those of you who have run 21 for public office and have gone door to door in this 22 community -- I know several of you who are here know 23 that there is no widespread opposition to nuclear 24 power in this community.
25 So I commend the NRC staff for being here.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234.4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 Thanks for listening. But know that you have a good 2 and favorable host community here. And I do hope that 3 to the extent technically feasible, you will extend 4 the licenses of these plants as long as possible.
5 Thank you.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you.
7 And Geralyn Winslow is our next speaker.
8 MS. WINSLOW: I've got a lot of stuff 9 here. I need to go through this comment book because 10 I have little sticky notes in here that have comments 11 that have to do with this report. And I need to look 12 through there.
13 I only have five minutes or how long can 14 I --
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Five minutes is a 16 guideline. If you go over a couple of minutes, that's 17 fine.
18 MS. WINSLOW: Okay. I received your 19 little report in December, about two weeks before 20 Christmas, when I had a few other things to do. And 21 I've tried to go through it, which I have. And I do 22 have a lot of things to say.
23 If I could go through the book and sit 24 down one on one, it would be the preferred option of 25 talking about what I have seen in this report. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 I'll try to go over the things that I have said here.
2 Do you want to talk about new information 3 versus old information in the book? It seemed like 4 everything I had said at the May 18th meeting was old 5 information. I'm sorry that it's old information, but 6 it's still pertinent.
7 There is new information, which I have 8 today to submit. And it's from Joseph Mangano from 9 the Radiation and Public Health Project. He sent me 10 these graphs, which show all of the local health 11 declines when Millstone opens, improves after closing.
12 And he has all of these graphs.
13 I'll just submit them. I won't go through 14 them all here, but this one is the thyroid cancer.
15 It's so obvious I just have to show it.
16 So this is the new information that I have 17 to offer today. And I still want to go over a little 18 of the old information and some of the things I saw in 19 the report.
20 Small, medium, and large. You guys spoke 21 about that. It's meaningless. It's all relative.
22 And, really, to say an impact is small, you have no 23 figures or no numbers. It's all through the book. It 24 really doesn't mean a lot to me.
25 And then I'll just go through the book and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 where I wrote things down about the water. And the 2 fact is that Millstone uses massive amounts of water, 3 which you guys did mention, to coolant systems. And 4 chemicals must be used to keep its water system 5 functioning.
6 I said this at the May 18th meeting. It 7 was not mentioned tonight, but I still would recommend 8 that Millstone build the cooling towers, especially 9 after reading this report. It would save some of the 10 fish and other wildlife in our area.
11 The water does go back into Long Island 12 Sound. And it's full of tritium. And the more that 13 the plant runs at full power, the more tritium gets 14 put back into Long Island Sound. That's not new, but 15 it's a fact, and it's an environmental fact.
16 I'll just say when I went through the 17 book, I wrote down "impingement." I wasn't sure what 18 that meant. And it's a nice little term that means 19 kill, kill the fish and other living organisms. And 20 it might be small, but it still happens.
21 I did look at this on the environmental 22 impacts and the geographic distribution and having to 23 do with environmental justice. And you claim that, 24 again, you say it's small, the impact of environmental 25 justice on the people that live around Millstone, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 what it doesn't look at is the whole picture because 2 in justice, environmental justice, is caused when the 3 low-level waste is shipped to Barnwell, South Carolina 4 and it' s environmental justice when the uranium that' s 5 used to make the fuel is mined on Native American land 6 and when the waste goes out to the goat chutes in 7 Utah. That's environmental justice. And it does 8 happen. It's not part of this report.
9 Also, as far as this report goes -- and I 10 heard a lot of it tonight -- I don't understand why 11 socioeconomics is part of this report. It's an 12 environmental report. Do you mean socioeconomic 13 environment versus a natural environment? Because the 14 emphasis in the report is on socioeconomics. It is 15 not the NRC's job to be concerned with the economic 16 impact of relicensing. And you did mention that you 17 have to have that.
18 My comment on this aspect of the report is 19 a strong objection. to the emphasis placed on the 20 economic impact of relicensing. Okay.
21 And, finally, the obvious objection I had 22 to this report is the separation of the waste issue 23 from relicensing.- And I did get to speak about that 24 a little bit. High-level waste is a major problem 25 that our government can't seem to solve in the nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 industry.
2 This report, in typical NRC fashion, 3 obfuscates the truth with its vague language and 4 overwhelmingly useless data meant to hide the truth 5 that have been presented here in these reports and 6 today by the Coalition Against Millstone as well as 7 the information that I had stated at the May 18th 8 meeting.
9 Today we have new information that nuclear 10 plants are causing harm to our families and our 11 precious environment. And I'm standing by the old 12 information that I have submitted and continue to 13 object to the license renewal at Millstone Nuclear 14 Power Station. But mostly as a person, as a citizen, 15 I'm saddened by the thought of 20 more years of 16 Millstone operating and saddened for future 17 generations, which will be adversely affected by our 18 need and our greed for more nuclear electricity.
19 Thank you for my chance to make these 20 comments.
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you.
22 (Applause.)
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you for those 24 specific comments, Gerry. And I would just remind 25 everybody that the comment period is until March 2nd NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
-1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 to submit further written comments.
2 I believe just one clarification is that 3 the -- and I'll let my colleagues correct me on this 4 if I'm wrong, but the NRC, like any other Federal 5 agency, is required under -- the requirements to do an 6 environmental impact statement has to include a 7 socioeconomic analysis as well as impacts on the 8 natural physical world.
9 We have Doug Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz?
10 MR. SCHWARTZ: I just want to follow up on 11 a couple of points the previous speaker made. I'm not 12 sure if the intent is to obfuscate, but it certainly 13 appears that way. And I think part of the problem is 14 because it needs to be run by an English major, rather 15 than be written by engineers, the report.
16 In one instance, the way numbers are
- 17. handled, $1.5 times 109 , when I have no idea whether 18 that was an attempt to obfuscate or just an engineer 19 writing that, but it should have been one and a half 20 billion dollars for the cost of the catastrophic 21 cleanup.
22 Another instance, the speed in which 23 evacuation could happen was listed. There would be a 24 delay of 7,200 seconds. It's in there. I'm sorry.
25 Normal people use two hours. And as a constructive NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234*4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 criticism for the NRC, if you don't want people to 2 think you're obfuscating, don't use that kind of 3 language. Have an English major clean it up.
4 I have a big problem with the Commission' s 5 standpoint that the staff basically at this level 6 isn't going to deal with the clear terrorist threat to 7 the nuclear power plants in the country. And so my 8 comments are generic about that. And they're specific 9 about the threat to Millstone.
10 I think it's silly to do an environmental 11 impact statement without quantifying, although it 12 can't be quantified, the threat from terrorists and 13 give it a very big role.
14 Five years ago, if someone did something 15 comparable to an SAMA on the World Trade Towers, the 16 engineers would have come back and said, "Very little 17 chance of them ever collapsing." But three years ago, 18 we know that there was a big chance of that happening.
19 The way I calculate it, Millstone is 20 probably one of the ten leading terrorist targets in 21 the country. And I'll tell you how I get there.
22 In any interview that Khalid Sheikh 23 Mohammed gave in -- I believe it was for the first 24 anniversary. He gave it with al Jazeera of September 25 11th. He said that they had talked in the latter part NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 of the 1990s. They had planned initially not to 2 attack the World Trade Towers. They had planned to 3 attack nuclear power plants, but they were afraid 4 that, quote, "it would get out of hand," end quote.
5 Now, what did he mean by that? I think he 6 meant that their experience with doing relatively 7 small and rationing up attacks on America, that there 8 wouldn't be any overwhelming response. Well, it did 9 get out of hand. And the World Trade attack was 10 sufficient to trigger an overwhelming response from 11 America.
12 Number one, they had planned to attack 13 nuclear power plants, but they skipped it and went to 14 the World Trade Center. Number two, there is some 15 intelligence on September 11th the flight that went 16 down in the field in Pennsylvania was either targeting 17 a building in Washington or that they would go after 18 a nuclear power plant.
19 Then the NRC issued a memo on January 20 23rd, '02. They had a senior al Qaeda member in 21 custody. They interrogated him. He said that they 22 were going to use planes to attack nuclear power 23 plants and that there were already three people on the 24 ground in the U.S. to facilitate those attacks.
25 In December of '03, you'll recall there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 were some flights cancelled coming over from Britain 2 and France. On January 4th, '04, the Sunday Times of 3 London reported that the intelligence behind those 4 flight cancellations was that power plants were going 5 to be attacked by jets on the East Coast.
6 Now, if I'm not mistaken, I believe there 7 are two to the east of us in New Hampshire and 8 Vermont. And I don't think anybody thinks that the 9 terrorists are going to attack power plants in New 10 Hampshire or Vermont. But with Millstone, you get the 11 trifecta. I would think that Millstone and Indian 12 Point are very prime targets and Millstone especially 13 because it is on the flight path going into New York 14 airports.
15 We had a great deal of overflights in this 16 area, patrols by all sorts of aircraft, helicopters, 17 Coast Guard jets going by at four or five hundred feet 18 during daylight hours, right after dark. And it went 19 on for quite a while, for the better part of a year or 20 more, I believe. It ended sometime this fall, I 21 believe. So something is up.
22 I don't know what they thought they could 23 detect from the air bringing a jet over at 100 feet 24 and what they could see or detect. I would suspect 25 that they were nuclear detection things trying to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 figure out if nukes were getting smuggled in.
2 I think that that is totally wrong. I 3 think the nukes are here. The nukes are the nuclear 4 power plants. And they're going to be used against 5 us. We have zero air defense at Millstone or any 6 other power plant. And I disagree.
7 By the way, I have been to the NRC's Web 8 site this week. And I looked up. They do have a lot 9 of good information. And it's clear that the 10 Commission is paying attention to the concerns of 11 citizens and our representatives. And we voiced our 12 concerns to our representative in this district, our 13 congressional representative. But nothing is being 14 done.
15 And earlier one of the staff members said 16 that he thought that in ten years, when the license 17 renewal kicks in, that he would assume the government 18 has got to do something about it. I happen to be a 19 Federal employee, and I wouldn't share that 20 assumption.
21 It's been three and a quarter years since 22 the 9/11 attacks. And, if I'm not mistaken, I think 23 the guards at Millstone here still don't have 24 automatic weapons because of our dysfunctional State 25 and Federal legislatures. They're not as well armed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
.(202).234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 as the terrorists attacking our troops right now in 2 Iraq.
3 Our guards should have heavy duty 4 automatic weapons, just like the guards for the 5 inauguration in Washington this month. If you have 6 seen any of the pictures, they're very heavily armed.
7 And they should also have things like RPGs and 8 everything to stop vehicles.
9 My concerns with the EIS are primarily 10 section 5 and what I said earlier. It's complete 11 ludicrousy to just ignore and quantify it as small and 12 SAMA as a terrorist attack. I found one mention of 13 the word "terrorist" in the entire document, and that 14 was quoting me from a scoping hearing. I believe 15 there's one mention of sabotage.
16 But there's something else I left out of 17 the equation. In September, CAIR, the Council for 18 American-Islamic Relations, opened up their first 19 office in New England. And they opened it up right 20 here in New London. They are a very litigious 21 organization.
22 I'm not saying that they are a terrorist 23 front, but many, many people, including U.S. senators 24 on down -- I believe they are banned from the White 25 House -- say they are basically a terrorist front and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 a terrorist fund-raising organization. Their 2 executive director at their New London office is an 3 engineer who works for Dominion.
4 I'm very concerned about the terrorist 5 threat. There is zero air defense. We were lied to 6 by our government. We were told that jets would be 7 scrambled, not that that would do any good, that jets 8 would be scrambled.
9 And.Murray Renshaw, who was going to be 10 here tonight -- he was here. I think he took off 11 because of the snow. He has a very vivid debunking of 12 that myth with a videotape he took on Labor Day. They 13 made a number of circles around the plant. And they 14 got down to an elevation of around 50 feet above the 15 stack. They kept spiraling down doing lazy circles.
16 And he showed that to thousands of people on his TV 17 show. So it's not a secret. It wouldn't do any good 18 to scramble jets anyhow.
19 So basically my concerns are attacks from 20 the land, the air, and the water. And, by the way,,
21 when I brought up this issue with Congressman Simmons 22 on Murray Renshaw's show, he said -- and the more I 23 think about it, the more I think he is right -- that 24 he was more concerned about a water-based attack.
25 And although we have plenty of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 intelligence, which -- I just enumerated that they are 2 planning to attack nuclear power plants specifically 3 on the East Coast using airplanes. So what are they 4 going to do?
5 I'm very heartened. I think it's a good 6 sign that the dry cask storage thing is getting 7 underway and got approval. And that will ;do a great 8 deal of good to remove that threat.
9 My only concern there is I would suggest 10 -- I think, if I recall, I read in the paper that the 11 concrete covers on the casks were going to be about 12 four-feet thick.
13 I'm not an engineer, but I would think 14 that that might not withstand a jet slamming into it.
15 I would just urge that it be buried deeply in the 16 gravel.
17 From the air, I think we need to defend 18 from the air the same way that we design nuclear power 19 plants today, that it be a walk-away thing, that if 20 something goes wrong, it doesn't require human 21 intervention and that you can just walk away from the 22 problem. And it doesn't allow decision-making to 23 enter in; in other words, whether to shoot down 24 something.
25 I think we should declare a no-fly zone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234-4433 (202) WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 .(202).234-4433
90 1 over Millstone and every other nuclear power plant.
2 I don't think it's a big deal like they're trying to 3 make out. We have a no-fly zone over every airport in 4 the country. I think there should be automatic 5 anti-aircraft guns in there, that if you stray into 6 that zone, you're toast.
7 I think there also can be low-tech 8 solutions. This is not the first time we have used 9 this in this area. In the Seventeenth Century, Groton 10 was ground zero, in America in the Seventeenth 11 Century, when the worst slaughter of Native Americans 12 occurred in New England.
13 In the Eighteenth Century, Groton was at 14 ground zero once again when the British killed the 15 defenders of Fort Griswald and as a percentage of our 16 population, two and a half times as many people died 17 on that day as died on 9/11.
18 What they did do to make sure in the War 19 of 1812 that it wasn't repeated, they came up with a 20 simple but eloquent low-tech solution. They forged a 21 giant chain, which stretched across the mouth of the 22 harbor. And if the British were sighted, they just 23 pulled up the chain.
24 I think we should do something similar 25 with Millstone. Planes are very fragile instruments.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 The wings will get ripped off easily if they encounter 2 cables or anything. We run cables into Millstone now.
3 I think we should just make a net. It sounds silly, 4 but if you think about it, I don't think so.
5 And, finally, on water-based offenses, I'm 6 concerned probably more than anything about them 7 disrupting the flow of water in or blocking the flow 8 of water out of the intakes and the exits. By flying 9 planes in, al Qaeda had scuba-trained individuals. We 10 know this from the intelligence. They had been 11 training for that.
12 So I think some sort of baffles. I think 13 some sort of nets or whatever to keep planes and 14 divers and specifically some sort of detection system 15 for all of that.
16 The stuff I have read on the Web site is 17 encouraging. Clearly there is a lot. It's clearly 18 classified, but clearly a lot is being done in terms 19 of detection and preparation of the guards to handle 20 an attack from the ground. But little or nothing is 21 done from the air. And from what I can gather, not 22 too much is being done from the water.
23 I don't see how this application can be 24 improved by ignoring these environmental realities.
25 There is a very real threat of making a big, huge mess NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 out of this whole region or the region around any 2 nuclear power plant. And I just don't buy the logic 3 that the NRC is using.
4 Thank you.
5 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you. Thank 6 you for that analysis, Mr. Schwartz.
7 We are going to go to Gail. Gail?
8 MS. MERRILL: Thank you very much. I 9 would have been a little more prepared, but I didn't 10 know which order we were going in tonight. Sorry.
11 I am here tonight -- some of the people 12 from the NRC and Dominion or whatever have heard me 13 speak earlier today, but for those of you in the 14 public and for the new reporters, the green party that 15 is here recording, I'd like to tell you why I came two 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> one way to be here.
17 My mother, living in Long Island, New 18 York, about 12 miles away down wind from Millstone 19 Nuclear Reactor has died of breast cancer. And I got 20 it 11 months later, 20 years earlier than she did, 21 because I grew up with the nuclear and chemical 22 industries. She didn't. My grandmother never had it.
23 My tumor is not genetic.
24 So I came here because there is nothing 25 more important to me than my safety. And for all the
',NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 time spent on reports, I guarantee you I spent more 2 time in chemo. Okay?
3 The gentleman who made the comments about 4 working for Electric Boat and worrying about the 5 finances of Millstone, personally that comment is 6 incredibly offensive to me. I don't give a damn about 7 Waterford finances. I don't think Millstone has a 8 right to threaten my life. And that's what I am faced 9 with.
10 When you get your cancer if you live here 11 long enough -- I'm saying "when," not "if" -- I think 12 you might reconsider. You can't take the money with 13 you when you die.
14 And I faced that a long time ago. My 15 family is Merrill Lynch. It doesn't matter how much 16 money I have. What matters is that I am alive. It 17 humbles you very quickly. There is nothing more 18 important to me. I don't give a damn about travel, 19 parties. Who cares? It's a moot point if you're 20 dead. So it's a very big deal to me. Okay? So you 21 understand where I'm coming from.
22 I, too, have been working with Radiation 23 and Public Health Project. Dr. Sternglass, who had 24 his conversation with Einstein when he was only in his 25 20s, helped to stop the above-ground nuclear bomb NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 testings that blew across the country.
2 It was documented in St. Louis baby teeth.
3 They documented with 35 baby teeth so far that the 4 highest level of strontium-90, the radioactive plants 5 are causing nuclear emission in our baby teeth. The 6 highest is around towns living closest to Millstone 7 Nuclear Reactor and Indian Point Nuclear Reactor.
8 They've documented it.
9 The highest cancer rate according to the 10 Tumor Registry of Connecticut, which is our official 11 Tumor Registry, the oldest and best in the country 12 apparently, the highest rates are in New London 13 County. And also then following that, the highest 14 towns are right around Millstone Nuclear Reactor.
15 So I dispute the NRC's findings that there 16 is no cancer link. I think it is so blatant. And I 17 think anyone who denies it -- okay? -- it means who is 18 following the money trail, folks.
19 So now you know my family history. The 20 other thing that I came here to say is that I have 21 watched far too many women -- and now it's actually 22 14-year-old and 15-year-old girls, more than one at 23 each age, with breast cancer in the State now. That 24 comes from our Tumor Registry. Check it out for 25 yourself.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 I have watched five women that I know of 2 that I was told of die of breast cancer in my area in 3 Fairfield County. Okay? Too many women in their 40s 4 in too many different town. I know of too many women 5 in their 30s getting double mastectomies and getting 6 the cancer right back again. Now, you guys don't 7 understand it. You don't got boobs. But we got 8 boobs, and women talk. And if they don't have it, 9 they're terrified of getting it because they're seeing 10 what is happening to their friends.
11 Where I live, we don't have any toxic 12 sites, no superfund sites. We're 25 miles down wind 13 from any points. I'm hit by both nuclear reactors.
14 I'm within that 100-mile radius. That radiation.org 15 documented statistically proves the risk for breast 16 cancer mortality is greatest if you're within the 100 17 miles.
18 This woman at a nail salon says, "Who's 19 next?" She knew 4 women in their 40s with different 20 kinds of cancers. So that's my problem. It's not 21 just my personal history. It's not just my mother's 22 death. It's the women around me. And it's younger 23 and younger and younger.
24 And you women probably are going to hear 25 about it, especially if you bother to ask. Okay? You NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 . . 234-4433 (202)
96 1 guys have to start asking too, because you're going to 2 have a woman in your life who is going to be affected 3 by this. And I hope to God there is an ounce of 4 integrity and you're not just here doing your jobs in 5 your suits because we are dying. And it's incredibly 6 scary if you are on the receiving end, like I am.
7 These maps that I have here, I'm going to 8 show this to everyone to see, God included. This is 9 the government maps, no dispute, folks. The 10 government that employs the NRC has funded and done 11 these maps. Okay? This is the breast cancer 12 mortality link to nuclear reactors.
13 If you look at it visually and follow the 14 pattern, we know that if it was just the hormones and 15 the meat, the disruption to the hormones and the 16 hormone replacement therapy feeding hormone-driven 17 breast cancer tumors, the whole country would be in 18 red for breast cancer mortality. But it's not.
19 The areas of high breast cancer mortality 20 line up with the location of nuclear reactors. And 21 that is why the Northeast has the highest breast 22 cancer mortality.
23 Then take a look at California. Take a 24 look at Texas. Only one small dot in Texas that is in 25 red, right where the nuclear reactors are.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 So you can see this visually. You can see 2 it documented with the tooth fairy project done by 3 radiation.org. You can talk to your friends. You can 4 look at your cemetery. In Westport, the new side of 5 the cemetery had lots more young deaths, 40 and 6 50-year-olds, as opposed to long-term life happening.
7 Okay?
8 That's what my friends and relatives and 9 nurses and doctors and hospice workers are saying in 10 my area. It's an epidemic, folks, and it's deadly.
11 And we're not just talking breast cancer.
12 We have trials with leukemia, lung cancer. The 13 daughter of strontium-90 is Yttrium if I have it 14 pronounced right.- Maybe my pronunciation is a little 15 bit off. But I just learned this last night from Dr.
16 Sternglass.
17 So it goes into your bones and teeth, the 18 strontium-90 does. It acts like calcium, lowers your 19 immune system, your thyroid functions. You are 20 vulnerable to cancer, bacteria, and viruses. And then 21 the daughter comes along and goes to the soft tissues, 22 like lung cancer. So if you know people with lung 23 cancer who never smoked, you might want to investigate 24 that.
25 Dr. Sternglass, by the way, has been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 pursuing the low-level radiation health risks related 2 to nuclear reactors for some 40 years. And he has 3 testified as an expert. Go investigate it. It's 4 quite stunning.
5 So my pet peeve, too many of us have 6 cancers in too many different towns. I'm down wind.
7 I may not be as close as you all. Thank God. But I'm 8 down wind.
9 You need to close Millstone Nuclear 10 Reactor. Too many of us don't want to die. I don't 11 think anybody in this room would volunteer for that 12 job. We have a right to be safe. We want to stay 13 alive.
14 Anyone here with integrity? Okay? That' s 15 what it comes down to.
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you 17 very much.
18 MS. MERRILL: Thank you.
19 (Applause.)
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, did you 21 want to say a few minutes' worth? I didn't know 22 whether you wanted to comment again. But I'm going to 23 hold you to the five-minute guideline.,
24 MS. BESADE: Good evening, everyone. My 25 name is Cynthia Besade. This is my father, Joseph H.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 Besade. He worked vehemently to close Millstone, to 2 stop the poison from emitting from the stack into our 3 bodies, causing cancers of all sorts of variations, 4 killing children at such a high rate it's hard to keep 5 track of.
6 He lost seven of his coworkers. He worked 7 for 20 years as a nuclear pipe-fitter at Millstone.
8 And seven of his coworkers died of this very same 9 disease that he passed from a little over a year ago.
10 Earlier today at the earlier session, I 11 read from my list. I-have a compilation of 12 approximately 67-plus people. I'm going to put my 13 father down for just a moment. This evening, as I 14 went home and took messages from my answering machine, 15 I learned that another relative has just been 16 diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Her husband 17 passed, my uncle and aunt, my godparents.
18 My uncle passed from lung cancer --
19 actually, it was also esophageal cancer -- six weeks 20 before my father. He lost his friends, his seven 21 coworkers. He became the eighth. He knew too many 22 people who worked at Millstone lived nearby that 23 passed away.
24 Our friends, our family, my classmates, my 25 friends, their parents, their children, so many NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 families have been destroyed by this terrible disease 2 that has taken hold of our community, disease that we 3 can only associate with ionizing radiation.
4 Yes, of course, cancer comes from other 5 things. And we do live in a highly industrial 6 society. However, you can only take a small sample 7 from different contributors. You can only write off 8 so many cases.
9 There is now information, recent 10 information, that gives us the ability to say that 11 there is a correlation between these cancers, these 12 access cancers, especially the ones in children, that 13 says that there is a causal relationship.
14 Yes, I spoke earlier about wanting to 15 know, how did you analyze the same information and 16 come up with your findings when many people have taken 17 a look; in particular, Joe Mangano, Dr. Sternglass, 18 for many, many, many years.
19 The very first report I read from Dr.
20 Sternglass was a study that he conducted in this area, 21 in the New London County area, from 1978, 1978, when 22 I first discovered that there was a problem, when I 23 was sitting with my friends holding their hands as 24 they are dying and they are in comas and they're 25 passing away. And I am saying to myself, "Why is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 this?"
2 Why are the children that I baby-sit for?
3 Why did they contract cancer? They live just down the 4 street from me. They live two or three houses away 5 from each other. And we buried them as well. And 6 their families are still crushed, and they don't have 7 any answer. But they all surmise it has to be 8 something in the neighborhood. We're talking about 9 less than two miles down wind.
10 My parents bought a home in 1963 to raise 11 their family in one of the most pristine areas as he 12 wanted us to have the same sort of ability to enjoy 13 the natural resources in the Niantic River or the 14 wonderful things that this area presents that are now 15 gone.
16 When you talk about the winter flounder, 17 we brought home bushel baskets of winter flounder, so 18 much that we couldn't possibly consume it. We froze 19 it, of course. We gave it to our relatives. We gave 20 it to the neighbors. And we even had so much we sold 21 it back to the fish store. For what? For more money 22 to go fishing, to enjoy the pleasures that were there.
23 Now, we ingested that shellfish and we ate 24 that fish. And we ate the stuff that came from our 25 garden. And now we know. And we drank the water from NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 our well. And now we know that that radiation found 2 its way into the soil and into the air that we breathe 3 and most certainly into the water as well.
4 And that is irrefutable. The data is 5 there. We have to stop this killing machine. We 6 cannot commit the next generations, those yet unborn, 7 to the ravages that we have experienced. This is 8 horrible. The grief that these people and these 9 families experienced, it doesn't go away. It's with 10 you for a lifetime.
11 I drove back here in shock to realize that 12 another one of my family members, another person in my 13 life that I now need to add to the list that I 14 submitted earlier -- my list continues to grow.
15 What am I supposed to think? This is not 16 something that has been imagined. This is not 17 something that people just conjure up. Why in the 18 world would I want to even be standing here talking 19 about this terrible thing that has just occurred again 20 in my family when my heart aches for this man, 21 somebody who dedicated over eight years of his life to 22 make it right, to get this thing out in the public, to 23 get you folks informed, and to ask you please to 24 participate.
25 Stop the killing machine. Close Millstone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 today. Thank you very much.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Cynthia.
3 Nancy, do you want to take a few minutes?
4 MS. BURTON: Good evening. I am Nancy 5 Burton. And I'm here speaking on behalf of the 6 Connecticut Coalition against Millstone in opposition 7 to this license renewal application and to speak about 8 the draft environmental impact statement.
9 I spoke earlier. Some of you here heard 10 what I had to say. I won't repeat it. But I have 11 some information that I would like to add to what I 12 presented before.
13 What I neglected to say was that our 14 review of this document shows it is very seriously 15 flawed. If this is an environmental impact statement, 16 it is difficult to understand why it omits to analyze 17 the chief environmental impacts of this nuclear power 18 plant on this community.
19 Some of those issues have been addressed 20 here already this evening. Terrorism is certainly one 21 major omission. And certainly the health issue is a 22 second major omission.
23 At page 4-53 of this report, it states, 24 astonishingly, "No evidence has been presented to 25 report a causal relationship between increased cancer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 incidence and Millstone operations." That is simply 2 not a true statement because the proceedings before 3 tonight were replete with information and evidence 4 linking Millstone with cancer. But after tonight, the 5 NRC cannot make that statement again in good faith.
6 That is going to be a lie.
7 This evening, the NRC has received 8 evidence that is irrefutable linking the emissions 9 from Millstone, routine emissions, with pollution and 10 contamination of the environment, which we see 11 manifest in dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of 12 people in this community.
13 We know from Millstone's reports that its 14 strontium-90 has found its way less than two miles 15 down wind to goats because it is revealed in their 16 goat milk. Well, if the strontium-90 is found in goat 17 milk, we know it must also be found in the grass, in 18 the water, in the air, and in people. And can anybody 19 not understand here how it ends up in the teeth of 20 children in this community? You have the evidence.
21 It's here tonight.
22 Now, with that evidence -- let's just not 23 stop there. Let's understand what needs to be done 24 because the killing time is over. We have had enough 25 suffering.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 Go to Seabreeze Drive. I didn't bring 2 tonight but I will be very happy or not happy, not at 3 all happy, but I will dutifully present to the NRC a 4 map of the different house locations on one street in 5 Waterford. This is Waterford, Connecticut, supposedly 6 doesn't have elevated cancer from Millstone. This is 7 less than two miles down wind northeast from 8 Millstone, at least seven incidences of cancer on that 9 one street. Most of them now death.
10 And that only covers a very recent period 11 of time. And, unfortunately, we have just learned of 12 another case within the past couple of weeks.
13 We will present a map that has that 14 information for you people to reveal. And you will in 15 your final environmental impact statement concede that 16 Millstone causes cancer in this community at 17 unacceptable levels.
18 And from there, you will determine to 19 close Millstone. But before you do that, you will 20 determine that there should be immediate action taken; 21 for instance, filters. The strontium-90 that escapes 22 through the vent at Millstone and contaminates this 23 community can be blocked. Engineers know how to do 24 that.
25 There is a cost factor involved, costs NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 money. So what? Why should that plant spout 2 radiation to this community when it is not necessary 3 and it is killing people? Filters can be put there.
4 Let me move into another area, which is a 5 major oversight in this so-called environmental 6 analysis. And that has to do with discharges, both to 7 the air and the water of pollutants.
8 There is no documentation in this entire 9 environmental impact statement of the chemicals, no 10 identification of the hundreds of chemicals, many of 11 them caustic, carcinogenic agents that are used at the 12 plant routinely and flushed out into the Long Island 13 Sound along with radioactive waste agents. It is 14 unnecessary for this pollution to occur.
15 Why doesn't it say that in this 16 environmental impact statement? It's so simple. It 17 can be stopped. That is an alternative. The way to 18 stop it other than shutting Millstone is to convert it 19 to a closed cooling system.
20 Why isn't that mentioned as a present 21 alternative to the way that the plant is operated now?
22 If the plant were converted to a closed cooling 23 system, that would: a) eliminate the discharge of the 24 caustic chemicals to the Long Island Sound; b) 25 eliminate the thermal plume to the Long Island Sound.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 1 Heat of the sound is one of the factors 2 you people say is one of the causes for the loss of 3 fish, but you don't think the thermal plume with the 4 loss of fish. At the same time, such a closed cooling 5 system would have the effect of virtually eliminating 6 the killing of the indigenous fish species.
7 In 1993, Northeast Utilities analyzed the 8 prospect of converting to a closed cooling system and 9 found that it could be done and it could be 10 economical. That was 1993.
11 Along came Dominion, the new report cited 12 by your people in your analysis. It can't be done 13 because it is too expensive and the benefit wouldn't 14 equal the effort, the money term, no reference to the 15 1993, which said that it could be done and it could be 16 done economically.
17 So we would encourage you to do what you 18 said you did, but it sounds like you really didn't do 19 this, which is to go into the community on a 20 fact-finding discovery mission. Find that 1993 21 environmental report that Northeast Utilities filed.
22 Go to the hospitals. Talk to doctors.
23 When you analyzed the loss of fish, winter 24 flounder, in your report, you state that you spoke 25 with the DEP. You don't name anyone from DEP. You NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 don't provide any documents from DEP. You just 2 regurgitate what you say somebody said to you from 3 there. That is not a very scientific methodology.
4 At the same time, you didn't talk to 5 fishermen. You said that you were concerned that 6 over-fishing was responsible for depletion of the 7 winter flounder. You didn't talk to fishermen. You 8 didn't go back and talk to the expert, Mark Gibson 9 from Long Island, who was able to persuade a judge of 10 the Superior Court of this State to shut down 11 Millstone Unit 2 to spare the winter flounder back in 12 1998. Why didn't you talk to him?
13 Instead, you talked to a consultant. You 14 called his work "independent," but the consultant, Mr.
15 Crivella, actually was a consultant paid and hired by 16 the utility. You don't say that in your report.
17 Why didn't you talk to Victor Crecco at 18 the Department of Environmental Protection? Why was 19 your bias so manifest in your report?
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Nancy, I'm going to 21 have to ask you to wrap up.
22 MS. BURTON: Because this is a defective 23 document. I will. I certainly will.
24 I have to point out one blatant 25 misstatement of fact before I step away. And that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1 appears at page 843, where the NRC is arguing against 2 wind power, against solar power, against conversion to 3 same methods and has this to say about replacement 4 power. This is section 8.2.4. This is talking about 5 alternatives, "If available, purchased power from 6 other sources could obviate the need to renew the 7 Millstone OLs, operating licenses. It is unlikely, 8 however, that sufficient baseload from power supply 9 would be available to replace the Millstone capacity.
10 Connecticut is a net importer of power.' That is 11 simply not true.
12 You don't attribute that statement to any 13 source, but we would recommend that you go to the Web 14 site of the Connecticut Sighting Council. That is a 15 State agency. Its responsibility under law is to 16 create projections of electrical need and current 17 generating capacity.
18 If you go to their Web site, you will see 19 that there is not only no need to import power to 20 Connecticut; power is exported. We have excess power.
21 And even if we took out Unit 2 and Unit 3 from 22 Millstone, we would continue to have excess power, 23 even at times of peak demand.
24 So all of this is incorrect information, 25 8.2.4, very important, because if the NRC does what it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
110 1 is compelled to do in lights of the fact that have 2 come out, and that is shut Millstone, this community 3 will suffer a boon, a real estate boon, because people 4 will be very pleased to live in an area where it was 5 once unsafe because of an operating nuclear power 6 plant. And there will be plenty of electricity. The 7 lights will go on. And it's not even necessary to 8 call upon the conservation. So I would encourage you 9 to check your facts, correct the facts, do a proper 10 environmental survey.
11 The people who weren't here earlier don't 12 know that Long Island wasn't notified of this meeting.
13 The supervisor of the Town of Southhold, 22,000 14 people, his jurisdiction extends over Fisher's Island, 15 which is within the 10-mile evacuation zone, they were 16 not notified of this proceeding until the last minute.
17 They came. They protested. They pointed 18 out -- and I would agree with them -- the defect of 19 this proceeding by failure of notice. Under Federal 20 law, National Environmental Protection Act requires 21 meaningful public opportunities for public 22 participation. And that is at the basis of it.
23 So I thank you very much for the time.
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you. Thank 25 you, Nancy.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202)
. . 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
ill 1 (Applause.)
2 MS. BURTON: I will be providing more 3 written comments.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Good, good.
5 MS. BURTON: Thank you.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We will look forward 7 to that.
8 Mr. John Markowicz?
9 MR. MARKOWICZ: Yes. For the record, I am 10 John Markowicz. And I am co-chairman of the Nuclear 11 Energy Advisory Council. I was introduced earlier 12 this evening in responses to questions regarding the 13 case study that had been requested by the Nuclear 14 Energy Advisory Council in the late 1990s and was 15 published in 2001.
16 As I indicated, the Nuclear Energy 17 Advisory Council is a creature of statute. It has 15 18 volunteer members, no paid staff. We are supported by 19 the Department of Environmental Protection and their 20 Hazardous Radiation Health Division.
21 We used to hold monthly meetings during 22 the restart process because of the concern within the 23 community. And the reason basically why the 24 organization was put together was to observe and to 25 provide additional public input and oversight into the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
112 1 restart process.
2 With that having been successfully 3 accomplished, the issues that are faced by the Energy 4 Advisory Council have basically diminished. In fact, 5 the public meetings that we held this past year with 6 the passing of Joe Besade were pretty much not even 7 attended by the public.
8 I would like to note that we did meet last 9 year. And in one of the meetings -- and this is for 10 the record. This is not a comment on the DEIS. I do 11 regularly review the performance reports that are 12 submitted as inspection reports by the regulators and 13 by the headquarters staff. And I do read them, and I 14 do review them.
15 The NRC has a color-code system they look 16 at. And the way they report deficiencies when they 17 find them is a green light and other colors. The 18 operations of the plant over the past 24 months have 19 been basically green, which is good, with the 20 exception of Millstone 2, which had two reactor trips 21 in March of last year. And there is a 12-month 22 evaluation so they go white, which means they get 23 additional inspections by the regulator. And they got 24 them. And those inspection reports were published.
25 And the utility received a passing grade.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 And that white symbol on Millstone 2 will 2 expire at the end of this current quarter if I 3 remember the rules correctly, the end of March or the 4 next reporting cycle, which would be the end of June.
5 So what I am trying to put into the record 6 on behalf of Nuclear Energy Advisory Council is the 7 report to the public is that since the restart of the 8 Millstone plants, Millstone's 2 and 3, they have been 9 operated in a safe manner. In fact, based on that 10 performance, there is no reason why I would recommend 11 to the Nuclear Energy Advisory Council that the 12 council vote to oppose the continued licensing of the 13 plant.
14 I would note for the record and, as I did 15 this afternoon in a different capacity, that, as you 16 heard this evening, there is palpable concern within 17 this community regarding the security of the nuclear 18 power installation, not so much the dome, more the 19 spent fuel.
20 And through a number of different events 21 that I participate, some with the Coast Guard, some 22 with Homeland Security, some with other agencies, I 23 am, in part, aware of activities that are going on to 24 ensure the safety and the security of the plant.
25 Somehow we have to do a better job of communicating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 that to the general public.
2 And since it is not covered in this report 3 for reasons that were mentioned earlier and reasons 4 that were mentioned earlier this afternoon, I 5 respectfully submit that the abstract or some portion 6 of the report address the absence of the security and 7 the emergency preparedness elements of environmental 8 issues from the report so the public is assured that 9 something is going on and that it is just not being 10 addressed in this report.
11 Thank you.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, John, for 13 that report and that suggestion.
14 I don't think I missed anybody. Did you 15 want to say something?
16 MR. MARKOWICZ: Yes.
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Come on up.
18 MS. NATUSCH: I'm Lauren Natusch from New 19 London, and I had three points that I wanted to make.
20 I did want to support the objections that 21 people have made or their concerns regarding security.
22 I I heard you say that you are not waiting for license 23 renewal to assess this and implement safeguards, but 24 I was not particularly reassured because what I really 25 want to hear you say is that you are holding license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 renewal pending assessment of this threat and 2 implementation of safeguards.
3 My second point is I object to the risk 4 assessment for winter flounder as moderate. If I 5 understand you correctly, you were saying that because 6 there are so many other risk factors for the flounder, 7 you can't figure out exactly how important this 8 particular risk is.-
9 I want to say that the risks are 10 cumulative. And when you have a flounder population 11 that is already endangered, any additional risk factor 12 becomes more than moderate. It becomes critical. It 13 becomes larger than large. It could be the last 14 straw.
15 And related to that, I have heard a lot of 16 testimony tonight about risk factors for the people 17 living in this community. We seem to be having 18 cancers. And it's very hard to pinpoint exactly what 19 the causes of those cancers are.
20 The effect of all sorts of toxins in our 21 environment is cumulative. And I want to suggest 22 that, like the flounder, we are a vulnerable 23 population and that any additional risk is 24 unacceptable.
25 Thank you.
NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
116 1 (Applause.)
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Lauren.
3 And I think at some point the stenographer may just 4 want to know how to spell your last name. Okay? All 5 right. I think it's probably time for Andy to close 6 out for us. I thank all of you for coming tonight, 7 some of you for coming twice today. And thank you 8 very much. Andy is going to close out the meeting for 9 us.
10 VI. CLOSING/AVAILABILITY OF TRANSCRIPTS, ETC.
11 MR. KUGLER: I just want to thank you also 12 for coming out this evening, particularly with the 13 weather that we're having. One thing that I will ask 14 is that you all be very careful going home. I'm not 15 sure what the road conditions are like, but I know 16 they were not supposed to be very good. So please be 17 careful going home.
18 As mentioned, if you want to comment on 19 the draft environmental impact statement after 20 tonight, you can do so in writing or by e-mail through 21 March 2nd.
22 In addition, if you have any additional 23 questions this evening, the NRC staff, we're here.
24 We'll stay around to answer any questions. We would 25 be happy to talk to you after we are done.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 That is all I have.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you.
3 (Whereupon, at 9:35 p.m., the foregoing 4 matter was adjourned.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 (202) 234-4433
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Millstone Power Station Draft EIS Public Meeting: Afternoon Session Docket Number: (not applicable)
Location: Waterford, Connecticut Date: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Work Order No.: NRC-1 73 Pages 1-182 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ++ + + +
4 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS 5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 6 FOR MILLSTONE POWER STATION 7 . . . . +
8 TUESDAY 9 JANUARY 11, 2005 10 . . . . .
11 WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT 12 . . . . .
13 The public meeting was held in the 14 auditorium of the Waterford Town Hall, at 1:32 p.m.,
15 Chip Cameron, Facilitator, presiding.
16 PRESENT:
17 RICHARD EMCH, NRC 18 ANDY KUGLER, NRC 19 ROBERT PALLA, NRC 20 DR. TED DOERR, LANL 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 (202) 234-44333 I
2 1 I-N-D-E-X 2 AGENDA ITEM PAGE 3 I. Welcome and Purpose of Meeting 3 4 II. Overview of License Renewal Process 17 5 III Results of the Environmental Review 39 6 IV. How Comments can be Submitted 84 7 V. Public Comments 91 8 VI. Closing/Availability of Transcripts, etc. 187 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS
. COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4. 433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (1:32 p.m.)
3 MR. ECCARD: Well, good afternoon, 4 everyone, and welcome to Waterford Town Hall.
5 Waterford, for those of you who don't 6 know, is the host community to the Millstone Power 7 Station located at Millstone Point in the very 8 southwest corner of our community. And Millstone has 9 been an important industrial site in the town of 10 Waterford for many years now.
11 The public session provides an opportunity 12 for the NRC to receive public comments on the draft 13 environmental impact statement for license renewal.
14 And I've been told that it's in the -- on the website 15 as well that the record remains open for a number of 16 weeks after they receive today's comments. The draft 17 EIS is also available on the NRC website. Many 18 residents have told me they found it there and read it 19 there.
20 So thank you all for participating in the 21 process. And on behalf of the town of Waterford, I 22 want to welcome all the NRC officials, and I also want 23 to recognize thelhard work that I've witnessed them 24 doing on this review process to get to this draft EIS 25 that they have before you today.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 So with that, let me introduce Chip 2 Cameron, and thank you again for being here.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you very much, 4 Paul. This is Paul Eccard, First Selectman of the 5 town of Waterford, and thank you again for allowing us 6 to use this facility.
7 My name is Chip Cameron, and I'm the 8 Special Counsel for Public Liaison at the Nuclear 9 Regulatory Commission, and I'd like to welcome you to 10 the NRC's public meeting today. Our subject today is 11 the environmental review that the NRC has conducted as 12 one part of our evaluation of whether to grant the 13 application from Dominion Nuclear Connecticut to renew 14 the operating licenses for Millstone Units 1 and 2.
15 And it's my pleasure to serve as your 16 Facilitator for today's meeting, and in that role I'll 17 just try to help all of you to have a productive 18 meeting.
19 I just want to talk a few minutes about 20 meeting process format, ground rules, and introduce 21 the NRC speakers to you before we get into the 22 substance of today's discussion. In terms of format, 23 we're basically going to use a two-part format for the 24 meeting, and these two parts pretty much correspond to 25 our objectives for today's meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 The first part, we want to give you some 2 information about what the NRC's license renewal 3 process is, what we look at in determining whether we 4 want to grant the application for license renewal, and 5 also to give you information about the analysis and 6 conclusions that are in the draft environmental impact 7 statement that we prepared on this license renewal 8 application.
9 And after we have some brief NRC 10 presentations on that, we'll go out to you to see if 11 you have any questions about the NRC process or the 12 conclusions in the draft environmental impact 13 statement. In the second part of the meeting, it's an 14 opportunity for you to give us your comments, advice, 15 recommendations on the draft environmental impact 16 statement. And we'll look forward to hearing from you 17 on that.
18 We're also taking written comments on 19 these issues, and the NRC staff will be telling you 20 how to submit written comments. But we wanted to be 21 here in person with you today, and anything that you 22 say today will carry as much weight as a written 23 comment that comes in to us.
24 In terms of ground rules, when we go out 25 for questions after the NRC presentations, if you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 a question, just signal me and I'll bring you this 2 cordless microphone. And please introduce yourself 3 and give us your affiliation, if that's appropriate.
4 And I would ask that only one person speak 5 at a time. We are taking a transcript. Peter Holland 6 is our stenographer today, and that's our record of 7 the meeting, and it will be available to all of you as 8 a record of what happened here this afternoon.
9 I would ask you to try to be concise, both 10 in your questions and your comments. We have a number 11 of people who want to speak today, and we want to make 12 sure that everybody has an opportunity to do that.
13 When we get to the comment period, the 14 second part of the meeting, I would ask you to all 15 follow a guideline of five minutes. Keep your remarks 16 to five minutes. And five minutes is usually enough 17 time to give us the important points that you want to 18 make. I know it's not enough time to say everything 19 that you want, but if you want to amplify on your 20 comments here today you can submit a comment in 21 writing.
22 If you have a prepared statement already, 23 we will attach that to the transcript today. And at 24 least during your comments this afternoon, we'll get 25 an idea of what issues we should be looking at in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 terms of potentially revising the draft environmental 2 impact statement. And it will also give other people 3 in the audience an idea of what the concerns are and 4 whether they might want to file written comments.
5 In terms of our speakers for today, we're 6 going to go to Mr. Andy Kugler, who is right here, to 7 just give you a short welcome. And he's the Chief of 8 the Environmental Review Section at the NRC in our 9 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
10 Andy and his staff prepare the 11 environmental reviews for any reactor license 12 application, whether it's a license renewal or an 13 early site permit. But Andy's the Chief of that 14 section. He's been with the NRC for approximately 15 15 years. He was in the Navy Submarine Service before 16 that. He has also worked for a nuclear utility, and 17 he has a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering 18 from Cooper Union and a Master's in Technical 19 Management from Johns Hopkins.
20 After Andy's welcome, we're going to go to 21 Mr. Richard Emch, who is going to give you an overview 22 of the license renewal process. And Rich is the 23 Project Manager for the environmental review for this 24 Millstone license renewal application, and he manages 25 the team that is preparing the environmental review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 He has been with the NRC for approximately 2 30 years, working on radiation protection and 3 environmental issues. He has a Master's in Health 4 Physics from Georgia Tech and a Bachelor's in Physics 5 from Louisiana Tech.
6 Then, we're going to get to the real heart 7 of the presentations today, and we're going to go to 8 Dr. Ted Doerr, who is right here. Dr. Doerr is the 9 team leader for the team that did the environmental 10 review, prepared the draft environmental impact 11 statement, and he is from Los Alamos National Lab.
12 He is an ecologist by training and has 13 done lots of environmental review work on many 14 different projects for the NRC, other agencies, other 15 organizations. He has a Bachelor's and a Ph.D. from 16 Texas A&M and Wildlife and Fisheries Ecology, and a 17 Master's Degree in Ecology from Texas Tech.
18 And, finally, we have Mr. Bob Palla from 19 the NRC. Bob Palla is a Senior Reactor Engineer, and 20 Bob is going to talk to us about a specialized part of 21 the draft environmental impact statement. Ted is 22 going to give you the bulk of that, but there is one 23 part of it that deals with severe accident mitigation 24 analysis. And I may not have that right, but the 25 acronym is SAMA. And we'll try not to use many NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 acronyms today. We'll at least explain what they are.
2 But Bob has 23 years' experience at the 3 NRC working on severe accident analysis issues and 4 also probabilistic risk assessment. And he has a 5 Bachelor's and Master's Degree in Mechanical 6 Engineering from the University of Maryland.
7 And with that, I would just thank all of 8 you for being here and for helping us through your 9 comments with the decision that we have to make on 10 this license renewal application. And with that, I'll 11 ask Andy to give a welcome, and then we'll get into 12 the program.
13 MR. KUGLER: Thank you, Chip, and thank 14 you all for coming out to our meeting today. I hope 15 that the information that we provide to you will be 16 helpful in understanding the process that we're going 17 through, where we are in that process, and how you can 18 help us to ensure that our final environmental impact 19 statement is an accurate document.
20 First, I'd like to give some general 21 context about the license renewal process. The Atomic 22 Energy Act gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the 23 authority to license nuclear power plants for a period 24 of 40 years. For Millstone Units 2 and 3, those 25 licenses expire in the years 2015 and 2025.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 Our regulations also make provisions for 2 extending those licenses for an additional 20 years.
3 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut has applied for license 4 renewal for both of these units. As part of the NRC's 5 review of that license renewal application, we perform 6 an environmental review.
7 We look at the impacts on the environment 8 of an additional 20 years of operation for these 9 plants. We held a meeting here last May where we 10 asked you for input on the scope of our review. And 11 as we indicated in that meeting, we have now returned 12 to discuss our draft environmental impact statement.
13 At the conclusion of our presentation, 14 we'll be happy to take any comments that you may have 15 on our draft environmental impact statement. We also 16 have several members of the NRC staff here, as Chip 17 has mentioned, and we'll be staying after the meeting 18 to answer any questions you might have.
19 Next slide, please.
20 Before I get into a discussion of the 21 license renewal process in particular, I'd like to 22 take a moment to talk about the NRC in terms of our 23 mission. As I said earlier, the Atomic Energy Act is 24 a legislation that authorizes Nuclear Regulatory 25 Commission to regulate the civilian use of nuclear NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 materials.
2 In carrying out that authority, the NRC's 3 mission is threefold. We protect public health and 4 safety, we protect the environment, and we provide for 5 a common defense and security.
6 The NRC accomplishes its mission through 7 a combination of regulatory programs and processes 8 such as inspections, enforcement actions, assessments 9 of licensee performance, and the evaluation of 10 operating experience from plants throughout the 11 country.
12 Turning *now to license renewal in 13 particular, the NRC's license renewal review is very 14 similar to the review that we performed during the 15 original licensing of these plants. It has two parts 16 to it -- a safety review and an environmental review.
17 The safety review includes a safety 18 evaluation, plant inspections, and an independent 19 review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor 20 Safeguards, also referred to as the ACRS.
21 Next slide.
22 Now this slide gives an overview of the 23 entire license renewal process. As I mentioned, it 24 involves two parallel paths -- the safety review and 25 the environmental review. The safety review involves NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 the NRC staff's review of the information in the 2 application regarding the safety side of the plant's 3 license renewal.
4 There is a team of about 30 NRC technical 5 staff and contractors who are conducting the safety 6 review right now. I'd like to introduce the project 7 manager for the safety review, Mr. Johnny Eads. He's 8 here with us today and will also be available after 9 the meeting if you have any questions.
10 The safety review for license renewal 11 focuses on how Dominion will manage the aging of 12 certain structures, systems, and components. Some of 13 the programs for managing aging are already in place; 14 others will be put in place for license renewal.
15 The safety review process also involves 16 audits and onsite inspections. These inspections are 17 conducted by a team of inspectors who are pulled 18 together from both our headquarters and our regional 19 offices.
20 We do have representatives of our 21 inspection program here today, and I'd like to 22 introduce them. We have the two resident inspectors 23 from the Millstone site, Mr. Kevin Mangan and Mr.
24 Silas Kennedy. These gentlemen are assigned to the 25 Millstone site, and all of their day-to-day activities NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 are carried out at the site. They are not from a 2 distant office.
3 In addition, we have their Branch Chief 4 with us today, Paul Krohn. He is from our regional 5 office in King of Prussia in Pennsylvania.
6 The results of the inspections are 7 documented in separate inspection reports. The 8 results of the staff's safety review, as well as the 9 results of those inspections, will be incorporated 10 into a safety evaluation report. Both of the onsite 11 inspections have been completed, and we're now in the 12 process of writing the safety evaluation report.
13 After that report is prepared, it will be 14 independently reviewed by the Advisory Committee on 15 Reactor Safeguards. This committee is a group of 16 nationally-recognized experts in nuclear safety, and 17 they serve as a consulting body to the Commission.
18 They'll review the license renewal application and the 19 staff's safety evaluation report, reach their own 20 conclusions, and report them to the Commission.
21 Now, the second part of the review 22 process, as I've mentioned, involves an environmental 23 review. We perform scoping activities, and we've 24 developed a draft environmental impact statement. The 25 environmental impact statement is a supplement to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
.(202). 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 generic environmental impact statement for license 2 renewal of nuclear plants.
3 We refer to that sometimes as the GEIS.
4 As Chip mentioned, we' 11 try and avoid using acronyms.
5 But if you hear that term, it's referring to that 6 generic environmental impact statement.
7 Now, the draft -- and there are copies of 8 this in the back if you want one. The draft 9 environmental impact statement has been published for 10 comment. Today we're here to receive your comments, 11 and then in July we would expect to issue the final 12 environmental impact statement.
13 That final environmental impact statement 14 will consider any comments that we receive here today, 15 plus any written comments we receive during the 16 comment period that's ongoing.
17 So as you can see from this slide, there 18 are a number of inputs to the Commission's decision on 19 whether or not to grant renewal of these operating 20 licenses. There is a safety evaluation report, an 21 environmental impact statement. There is the inputs 22 from the inspections, and also the inputs from the 23 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
24 I would like to point out the splashes on 25 the slide. These indicate opportunities for public NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 involvement in the process. The first opportunity was 2 during the scoping meeting back in May, and many of 3 you may have attended that meeting. This meeting on 4 the draft environmental impact statement is another 5 opportunity.
6 There was a request made for a hearing.
7 However, the Board determined that the contentions 8 would not be admitted, and, therefore, there has not 9 been or will not be a hearing on this review. And 10 when the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 11 meets to review the safety evaluation report, those 12 meetings are open to the public.
13 There is one other aspect of our review 14 that I'd like to address. You may have noticed that 15 in discussing the safety review I didn't make any 16 mention of issues like security or emergency planning.
17 Now, this might seem strange to you considering how 18 important these issues are, and I want to assure you 19 that the staff does consider these issues to be 20 important.
21 But when the staff developed the license 22 renewal process, we recognized that these programs for 23 things like emergency planning and security are 24 ongoing programs. When issues arise and we change our 25 regulations to address new issues, the licensees are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 required to comply with the new regulations. We don't 2 wait for license renewal to address any changes. So 3 those programs are maintained constantly.
4 Because of that, we determined that these 5 areas did not need to be addressed in license renewal, 6 because they are going to be constantly maintained 7 throughout the life of the plant, including any 8 extended period of operation.
9 I 'd now like to turn the presentation over 10 to Mr. Richard Emch, the Environmental Project 11 Manager, and he will discuss the environmental review 12 in more detail.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. EMCH: Hello, everyone. I had a 15 traffic accident yesterday, and my glasses didn' t make 16 it, so I'm wearing my prescription sunglasses. So I'm 17 not trying to be Dr. Cool or anything.
18 (Laughter.)
19 I just want to be able to see you.
20 As Andy said, my name is Richard Emch.
21 I'm the Environmental Project Manager for the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission on the Millstone project.
23 Can everybody hear me okay?
24 Is this better? Okay.
25 Okay. Next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202)
. . 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 That's the right slide. Excuse me.
2 We're here today to discuss the NEPA 3 process. That's the National Environmental Policy Act 4 of 1969. It requires Federal agencies to use a 5 systematic approach to consider environmental impacts.
6 7 And, basically, it's a discovery process 8 where we go out and look for all of the information we 9 can find, and we bring it to bear. We consider all of 10 the impacts. We consider possible mitigative features 11 or systems or ways to mitigate the impacts, depending 12 on how large they are.
13 Now, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has 14 the -- has come to the conclusion, or has made the 15 determination, that we're going to issue an 16 environmental impact statement for any license 17 renewals, and so that's when you heard Andy talking 18 earlier about the GEIS.
19 What we do is we issue a plant-specific 20 environmental impact statement, a supplement to the 21 GEIS, and that's the document that's on the back row 22 that you heard Andy talking about earlier.
23 One of the things that we do as part of 24 that assessment is we investigate alternatives, and 25 those alternatives do include the "no action" NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 alternative. The "no action" alternative would be not 2 granting the license renewal, and instead, therefore, 3 the plant would not be able to continue operation past 4 their current deadlines.
5 Next slide, please.
6 The purpose of this whole review that 7 we're going to be talking about today, the 8 environmental review that Ted is going to go into a 9 lot of detail, Bob is going to go into a lot of 10 detail, but the purpose of the whole thing is to --
11 for us to be able to reach a conclusion.
12 In this case, what we're talking about is 13 we're going to -- what we're trying to do is to 14 determine whether the -- whether or not adverse 15 environmental impacts of license renewal, whether they 16 are so great that preserving the option of license 17 renewal for Millstone would be unreasonable.
18 And our preliminary conclusion, which I'm 19 going to talk about a little bit later -- but I'm 20 going to go ahead and give it to you now -- our 21 preliminary conclusion is that they would not be so 22 great. In other words, we believe that it is 23 reasonable to keep that option for the continued 24 operation for the license renewal open.
25 Next slide, please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 . . 234-4433 (202)
19 1 Andy showed you an overall diagram of the 2 license renewal process earlier. This one is limited 3 to the environmental process, and I'm going to talk --
4 kind of talk through where we're at in the process, 5 folks.
6 The splash marks that Andy talked about 7 earlier still apply. This is places where the public 8 can participate. The application was submitted in 9 January, January 22, 2004. We sent out a Notice of 10 Intent to undergo scoping, environmental scoping, and 11 to hold a public scoping meeting on March 31, 2004.
12 In May of this year, we underwent the 13 scoping process. We had an environmental site audit 14 the week of I think it was May 19th. Also during that 15 week we held a public meeting here that a lot of you 16 participated in.
17 At that time, I asked you to help us, to 18 be my local environmental experts, and many of you 19 took me up on that. Many of you made comments at that 20 meeting about issues that we needed to look at, about 21 information that you thought we needed to be aware of.
22 Many of you also sent us comments, which we used to 23 help us guide our process. So I want to thank you for 24 that.
25 On June 22, 2004, we sent a request for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 additional information to the licensee. These 2 additional requests were all in the area of SAMA, the 3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis.
4 And now we've issued the supplement in 5 December 2004. Again, if you were at the last 6 meeting, we sent you one, or if you had any 7 interaction with us where we had your address, we sent 8 you one. If you didn't get one, they're on the back 9 table. And if you leave us with your address, we'll 10 make sure you get the final when we submit -- when we 11 put it out.
12 We're holding this -- this splash mark is 13 here because we're holding this meeting tonight, and 14 there will be opportunities for quite a while in the 15 next several weeks to provide us comments. At the end 16 of the session, we're going to talk a little bit more 17 about that. And then, of course, the final of this 18 effort is the issuance of the final supplement in July 19 of 2005, of this year.
20 Okay. Now I'm going to turn it over to 21 Ted Doerr, our team leader, lab team leader, and he is 22 going to run through all of the specifics for us.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Rich, let's see if 24 anybody has questions on the process itself before we 25 get into the substance of the draft environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 review.
2 Any questions about how the NRC evaluates 3 the license renewal application, what types of 4 information the NRC looks at? Yes, ma'am. And we've 5 got to get you on the transcript, so if you could just 6 give us your name, please.
7 MS. BOWMAN: My name is Mitzi Bowman from 8 New Hampshire.
9 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Mitzi, let me 10 come back there. All right. Go ahead, Mitzi.
11 MS. BOWMAN: Yes. I'd like to ask if the 12 environmental impact statement includes the human 13 environment and whether or not we are -- as human 14 beings are part of that environmental assessment.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Great. Thank 16 you, Mitzi.
17 Rich?
18 MR. EMCH: Yes, ma'am, it includes the 19 human environment. For instance, there is a lot of --
20 there are sections on radiation exposure and releases, 21 radiological effluent releases from the plant. There 22 are sections about possible microbioorganisms. There 23 is discussions about contaminants that might be 24 released from the plant as the -- really, the whole 25 report is really about the quality of the human
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 environment.
2 We do look at terrestrial and aquatic 3 endangered species. We look at a lot of different 4 things that regard animals and other things, and Ted 5 is going to get into all of that. But, yes, ma'am, 6 our focus is the quality of the human environment.
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And as Rich said, 8 Ted will talk a little bit more about that. But we 9 also look at socioeconomic issues, not just physical 10 issues, too.
11 Are there other questions about the 12 process at this point? Yes. Hi.
13 MS. MERRILL: Hi. I'm Gail Merrill. I'd 14 like to know what you mean by you look at 15 socioeconomic areas. For example, do you look at what 16 would happen to the town of Millstone if you were to 17 close it, because those of us with cancer are dying?
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Do you want to -- do 19 you want to wait until Ted gets into this, so that he 20 can explore that a little bit more? Or do you want to 21 handle it now?
22 MR. EMCH: I will say a few words about 23 it.
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right.
25 MR. EMCH: And then we'll probably have to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202)
. . 234-4433
23 1 come back to it.
2 What I mean by "socioeconomic issues" is 3 issues regarding the ability of the community and the 4 impact on the community in terms of taxes, land use, 5 planning, facilities, things like that. That's what 6 we generally speak of. The economic kinds of issues 7 is what we're usually talking about in socioeconomics, 8 and Ted will go through that in more detail.
9 As I said, we do also talk about -- we 10 talk about radiation. There's a whole section, 4.7, 11 that talks about radiation and cancer and the 12 investigations we did on that subject.
13 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And, Gail, it is --
14 this isn't for everybody. We are answering questions 15 now, but a lot of times there's an implied comment in 16 the question. If you look at the environmental impact 17 statement, draft environmental, and you want to tell 18 us tonight or in writing if you want to say, "That 19 example you used, that's something you should look 20 at," that's a legitimate comment on the draft 21 environmental impact statement. Do you have a 22 followup question?
23 MS. MERRILL: Yes, I do. I'm looking at 24 I guess the economics of -- not just the economics of 25 a town and what would happen to the taxes if it closed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 or stays open or whatever, but what about the 2 economics of people with cancer? That's another 3 economics that's factored in.
4 It caused people to get sick, and it cost 5 the town and the insurance companies to pay for it, 6 not just the tax benefit to having a nuclear power 7 plant versus the cost to shut it down. So there's the 8 human side, plus the financial side. That's what I'm 9 getting at. I think it's terribly important to those 10 of us who have been impacted.
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
12 And I think it's clear what you're suggesting there, 13 and that -- that will be on the record as a comment.
14 Thank you.
15 Other questions at this point before we go 16 to the draft environmental impact statement?
17 Nancy, do you want to -- I'll bring this 18 back to you. Okay? Here you are.
19 MS. BURTON: Thanks very much, Chip. I'm 20 Nancy Burton. I'm here representing the Connecticut 21 Coalition Against Millstone.
22 I was interested to hear the comment that 23 this environmental impact statement draft addresses 24 the issue of radiological impacts and cancer in the 25 community. I have reviewed every page of this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 document, and I have found nothing here that seriously 2 addresses or, in fact, even addresses the link that 3 the scientific community has established between 4 radiological emissions from nuclear power plants such 5 as Millstone and cancer.
6 In fact, what I have seen in this report 7 is an outright statement that no link has been 8 established between the radiological emissions from 9 Millstone, which we know are among the very highest in 10 the entire country, and the high incidence of cancer 11 which has been identified in this area.
12 In fact, at pages 435 to 436, this seems 13 to be the entire context and content of this 14 environmental impact statement relating to 15 radiological impacts of normal operations with the 16 final finding that essentially there are none. So I 17 wonder if I have overlooked something in this draft 18 document.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And, Ted, 20 when you get to your description, you may want to 21 elaborate on that.
22 Rich, do you want to say anything on that?
23 And I would just note that -- that there is a question 24 there, but also, again, it's in the nature of a 25 comment, that we'll consider as a comment. Rich, do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 you want to say anything at this point?
2 MR. EMCH: I just want to say that we're 3 going to get into this with -- maybe we should hear 4 the rest of the comments before we take more 5 questions. We know there's going to be a lot about 6 this issue, and then I can address them all at once at 7 the end.
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Well, maybe -- is 9 Ted going to talk to this at all?
10 MR. EMCH: He will say a few words about 11 it, yes.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
13 MR. EMCH: But he won't talk about it 14 extensively, no.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right.
16 MR. EMCH: Not to the level that Nancy or 17 that Gail is --
18 MS. BOWMAN: We can't hear.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Yes, I'm sorry.
20 He's talking off mike here.
21 Why don't you address it right now, and 22 then we'll go to Ted.
23 MR. EMCH: All right.
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay?
25 MR. EMCH: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 FACILITATOR CAMERON: As much as you can 2 at this point.
3 MR. EMCH: At the scoping meeting, a 4 number of you brought forward information to --
5 brought some information forward to us about 6 information from the Cancer Tumor Registry, 7 information from other scientific studies that you had 8 found. One of them -- a couple of them were from a 9 Dr. Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health 10 Project.
11 There was also a presentation on a 12 document that -- I believe it's called the CASE study 13 that was performed under the auspices of NEAC. And we 14 have examined all of those documents, as well as 15 others. We have talked to the Connecticut Department 16 of -- Division of Radiation under the Connecticut 17 Department of Environmental Protection.
18 And we also looked at the -- at the 19 effluents, the effluent monitoring and the 20 environmental/radiological environmental monitoring, 21 samples taken -- so this is -- we're talking about 22 samples taken as the effluents are leaving the plant, 23 as well as effluents -- as well as samples taken and 24 measured out in the environment -- milk, water, air, 25 fish samples, and that sort of thing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 Just talking about doses first -- the 2 amounts of releases from this plant are very small.
3 They are well within the Nuclear Regulatory and EPA's 4 regulations and standards. They are way below, orders 5 of magnitude below, the level at which credible 6 studies -- studies that have been reviewed by the NRC 7 and by international groups such as the ICRP, have 8 investigated.
9 Those studies all indicate that damage has 10 not been seen and shown below 10,000 millirem. The 11 standards for EPA are 25 millirem per year from the 12 entire fuel cycle, including the operation of 13 Millstone. And the effluents in recent years from 14 Millstone, the highest doses to a member of the public 15 would be approximately 1 millirem.
16 Okay. So starting with that as a 17 backdrop, then we went to look at the data directly 18 from the Connecticut Tumor Registry. By the way, that 19 is the data, folks, for the entire state. You can --
20 you can look -- you can look at anybody else's report 21 about how they captured it, how they set it up, and 22 how they chose which years or which kind of data they 23 were going to get, it is all coming from the 24 Connecticut Tumor Registry, which we examined and we 25 talked to the public health people.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 And the evidence from all that is that 2 there is no -- I repeat no -- increased cancer in the 3 population here from the operation of this plant.
4 I'll just flatly say that.
5 Okay. At this point, I think we've made 6 our comment. You are welcome to make yours, Gail, or 7 anybody else.
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And there is more 9 information on radiological issues in the generic 10 environmental impact statement on license renewal, for 11 those of you who are interested in looking at that.
12 I want to keep this to questions, because 13 there is going to be a comment period, and you can 14 comment on what Rich said. You can disagree with it, 15 obviously, but we want to keep this to questions.
16 Okay? Yes.
17 MS. DOMENICI: My name is Marie Domenici, 18 and I am interested to know if there is any statistics 19 that you have as it relates to former employees of 20 Millstone or any other nuclear power plant, and what 21 their track record is for occurrence of cancer. Does 22 anyone have that statistic?
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Rich, do you have 24 anything on that?
25 MR. EMCH: I'll say just a few words. I
-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 just read something just the other day.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right.
3 MR. EMCH: Actually, I don't remember 4 exactly where I read it, but I believe it was -- it's 5 been referred to in the news media as the Columbia 6 study. Is that -- anybody familiar with that? Okay.
7 I just looked through the whole writeup 8 the other day. Basically, one of the things that the 9 study found is the healthy worker effect. It's 10 commonly found. Any group of employees that are --
11 that have good health care, for instance, tend to have 12 what we call the healthy worker effect.
13 But basically what they found, they looked 14 at a number of nuclear power plants -- I don't know 15 specifically if Millstone was one of those plants --
16 but in general what they found is no -- absolutely no 17 increase in cancer -- as a matter of fact, less 18 cancer, both fatal 'andnon-fatal -- for the workers as 19 opposed to the regular public. And there were some 20 other things that they looked at, but those -- that's 21 some of the major points.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And as Rich 23 said earlier, we'll be here. He's going to give you 24 his phone number. If you need any more information to 25 try to get that study, we'll get it for you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 I'm going to go to three quick questions, 2 because we -- a lot of questions may be relevant to 3 the -- Dr. Doerr's presentation, and we can get to 4 them then. But, Nancy, can -- do you have a quick 5 followup?
6 MS. BURTON: I do.
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right. Okay.
8 This is Nancy Burton again. Nancy?
9 MS. BURTON: Thank you, Chip.
10 Mr. Emch, I have a question about the 11 procedure here, because a great deal of information 12 was presented during the proceedings that were before 13 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that somebody 14 here had reference to. And during those proceedings, 15 the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone presented 16 a great deal of information.
17 And you were in attendance at those 18 proceedings as well as, if I'm not mistaken, Victor 19 Nersis, Serces, whatever his name is, and others 20 representing the NRC. For instance, there was a 21 document presented which was the affidavit of Dr.
22 Ernest Sternglass, which went through chronologically, 23 historically, the scientific links between 24 radiological emissions from nuclear power plants such 25 as Millstone, and, in fact, including Millstone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 particularly, and cancer, including very recent -- a 2 very recent report appearing in The Journal of the 3 American Medical Association linking dental X-ray 4 exposure to pregnant women to early childbirth, 5 premature labor, and potentially significant problems 6 later.
7 In addition to Dr. Sternglass' affidavit, 8 you saw us present documents from Joseph Mangano in 9 which he detailed recent analysis of teeth donated by 10 children. And these teeth, according to the 11 declaration provided by Mr. Mangano, were analyzed for 12 Strontium-90 content. And the information that was 13 submitted showed that the baby teeth collected in the 14 State of Connecticut had, in the areas nearest the 15 nuclear power plant, double the level of Strontium-90 16 as compared with the average -- so-called -- in the 17 population, measured in picocuries per calcium -- gram 18 calcium.
19 In addition, you saw that we presented a 20 report, a recent report from the European Commission 21 on Radiation Standards, which in very conscientious 22 terms analyzed the present levels/standards of 23 radiation exposure that are being applied in these 24 present proceedings and found, on the basis of 25 overwhelming scientific evidence, that the standards NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 are probably 100 to 1,000, or possibly more, 2 understated, and that the standards should be very, 3 very significantly heightened in order to protect the 4 population from disease from cancer and even genetic 5 mutation.
6 We presented to those proceedings an 7 affidavit from Cynthia Besade -- a resident of 8 Waterford for many years, and a person knowledgeable 9 as to aspects concerning former workers at the 10 Millstone power plant, including her father who was 11 one of seven pipefitters who all died of similar 12 diseases, cancers, before their time.
13 Her affidavit also detailed examples of 14 children dying of leukemia and other diseases in the 15 community, friends, mothers of --
16 MR. EMCH: Is this your comment period?
17 MS. BURTON: So here is my question. My 18 question is: why, if you were present at those 19 proceedings, in the company of other representatives 20 of staff of the NRC, why is that information not 21 referenced in this report, nor taken into account?
22 Thank you.
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Rich, can you use 24 that microphone up there, please?
25 MR. EMCH: I'll try. Okay. First thing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 is I was at a prehearing conference, and there were 2 some documents presented as part of that. I don't --
3 I do not recall reading through all of that 4 information. Okay? But we can, and we will. If you 5 want to present it here, or have it appended to the 6 record, we will look at it.
7 You may have me confused on at least one 8 of the meetings that you're talking about, because I 9 don't recognize everything that you're saying. But at 10 any rate, that's immaterial. If you have documents, 11 we will be -- we look at them. We'll review them as 12 part of the comment process.
13 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 14 Rich. I think that that's the key point is that 15 please let us see those documents as a comment on the 16 draft environmental impact statement.
17 We're going to go to Gail and then Mitzi, 18 and then we're going to go on. Gail?
19 MS. MERRILL: I have to say that in 20 hearing that I'm so enraged at your comment about the 21 cancer/nuclear reactor link that I will say very 22 bluntly I think you're lying to the public. The 23 question I might have for you is: do you really think 24 you're telling the truth to the public? I've got the 25 documents, and the public will see it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 They will see your own government maps 2 linking and showing the correlation and how the breast 3 cancer mortality maps line up with the location of 4 nuclear reactors. It's your own government -- it's 5 your office that shows it.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And, Gail, make sure 7 that we know what that study is, that information that 8 you're talking about, too.
9 MS. MERRILL: It's the Atlas of Cancer 10 Mortality from the government, and it's the national 11 -- and it's the NRC's Location of Nuclear Reactors.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. So one 13 document is -- yes, one document is the NRC's, which 14 just shows the reactors. The second document is 15 another document that shows -- it would be an overlay 16 of breast cancer mortality I guess is what you're 17 saying. And that's the one that we need a citation 18 to.
19 But you're raising a serious issue, 20 obviously. And, Richard, can you talk to that?
21 MR. EMCH: I'll use the same -- I'll say 22 the same thing. We'll be happy to review that 23 documentation.
24 But let me just back up to something, 25 okay? I have carefully reviewed the Connecticut Tumor NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 Registry data, and the town of Waterford is not the 2 highest. For instance, breast cancer, whatever cancer 3 you want to pick, the town of Waterford is not the 4 highest. In most cases, many towns in Connecticut are 5 higher.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And when you 7 get to the comments, you can -- you can elaborate on 8 this. You can elaborate in written comments.
9 We're going to go for one more question.
10 We're going to go for one more question here, and then 11 we're going to go to the next presentation. And we'll 12 get to your question, Michael. You'll get a chance to 13 make a comment later. I'm sorry.
14 Mitzi, do you have a question?
15 MS. BOWMAN: I have a question, a very 16 important question.
17 MR. STEINBERG: (Inaudible comment from an 18 unmiked location.)
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Michael? Michael, 20 we -- I think we understand that.
21 MR. STEINBERG: (Inaudible comment from an 22 unmiked location.)
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 24 Michael.
25 Mitzi?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 MS. BOWMAN: Yes. You referred to the 2 ICRP and other agencies, which primarily refer to 3 externally received rems/doses of radiation. What I 4 want to know is: have you looked and are you 5 considering the latest information, the latest 6 scientific information, both from Great Britain and 7 from the United States, that refer to internal 8 emitters and the effect of internal emitters?
9 And that also relates to my question about 10 the environmental impact on human beings. Thank you.
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 12 Mitzi.
13 Richard?
14 MR. EMCH: The dose information that we 15 were talking about, the dose analyses, do indeed 16 address doses to internal organs from inhalation, 17 ingestion, direct radiation. And as far as I know, 18 I'm giving you the most recent information that the 19 NRC has agreed to or endorsed regarding those issues.
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
21 We're going to have time for more 22 questions after the next presentation.
23 Thank you, Richard.
24 This is Dr. Ted Doerr, who is going to 25 tell you about the analysis and conclusions in a draft NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 environmental impact statement.
2 DR. DOERR: As Chip said, I work at the 3 University of California at Los Alamos National 4 Laboratory. The NRC contracted with us to provide the 5 expertise necessary to evaluate the impacts of license 6 renewal at Millstone. The team consists of nine 7 specialists from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New 8 Mexico and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in 9 Washington State.
10 The expertise we provide for the plant 11 relicensing and for the alternatives analysis are 12 shown on this slide and include atmospheric science, 13 socioeconomics and environmental justice, land use, 14 archaeology, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, 15 radiation protection, hydrology, nuclear safety, and 16 regulatory compliance.
17 Next slide.
18 This is a diagram of the analysis process 19 we used. The generic environmental impact statement 20 for license renewal, also known as NUREG-1437, 21 identifies 92 issues that are evaluated for license 22 renewal. Sixty-nine of these issues are considered 23 generic or Category 1, which means that the impacts 24 are the same for all reactors or the same for all 25 reactors with certain features, such as plants with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 cooling ponds.
2 For the other 23 issues, 21 are referred 3 to as Category 2 issues. The NRC found that the 4 impacts were not the same at all sites, and, 5 therefore, a site-specific analysis was needed. In 6 addition, two issues are referred to as not 7 categorized, and, therefore, a site-specific analysis 8 also is needed.
9 Only certain issues addressed in the 10 generic environmental impact statement are applicable 11 to Millstone. For those generic issues that are 12 applicable to Millstone, we assessed if there was any 13 new information related to the issue that might affect 14 the conclusion reached in the generic environmental 15 impact statement.
16 If there is no new information, then the 17 conclusions of the generic environmental impact 18 statement are adopted. If new information is 19 identified and determined to be significant, then a 20 site-specific analysis would be performed. And we'll 21 talk a little bit further about potential new and 22 significant information later in this presentation.
23 For the site-specific issues related to Millstone, a 24 site-specific analysis was performed.
25 Finally, during the scoping period, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 public was invited to provide information on potential 2 new issues. And the team, during their review, looked 3 to see if there was any new issues that needed 4 evaluation.
5 For each issue identified in the generic 6 environmental impact statement, an impact level was 7 assigned. These impact levels are consistent with the 8 Quality Council on Environmental Quality. For a small 9 impact, the effect is not detectable or too small to 10 destabilize or noticeably alter any important 11 attribute of the resource.
12 For example, a plant may cause the loss of 13 adult and juvenile fish at the intake structure. If 14 the fish loss is so small that it cannot be detected 15 in relation to the total population in the water, the 16 impact would be small.
17 For a moderate impact, the effect is 18 sufficient to noticeably alter, but not destabilize, 19 important attributes of the resource. Again, using 20 fish as an example, if losses at the intake causes the 21 population to decline and then restabilize at a lower 22 level, the impact would be moderate.
23 For an impact to be considered large, the 24 effect is clearly noticeable and sufficient to 25 destabilize important attributes of the resource. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234-4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 if a loss at the intake caused the fish population to 2 decline to the point where it cannot be stabilized and 3 continually declines, then the impact would be large.
4 When the team evaluated the impacts from 5 continued operation at Millstone, we considered 6 information from a wide variety of sources. We 7 considered what the licensee had to say in their 8 environmental report. We conducted a site audit 9 during which we toured the site, interviewed plant and 10 personnel, and reviewed documentation of plant 11 operation.
12 We also talked to Federal, State, and 13 local officials, and service agencies. Lastly, we 14 considered all of the comments received from the 15 public during the scoping period. These comments are 16 listed in Appendix A, along with the NRC's responses.
17 The body of information is the basis for the analysis 18 and preliminary conclusions in this Millstone 19 supplement.
20 In Chapter 2 of the draft EIS supplement, 21 we discussed the plant and the environment around the 22 plant. In Chapter 4, we looked at the potential 23 environmental impacts, for an additional 20 years of 24 operation for Millstone Units 2 and 3.
25 There are six issue areas the team NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 reviewed and evaluated. I'll take just a few minutes 2 to identify and highlight our review for each of these 3 six issues. If you have any additional questions on 4 the findings, I'll attempt to answer them or ask one 5 of the team members here today to respond.
6 Entrainment, impingement, and heat shock 7 are Category 2 issues used to assess the impact of 8 cooling systems to the aquatic community. Entrainment 9 is the process of aquatic organisms passing through 10 the debris screens at the intake and traveling through 11 the cooling system.
12 Impingement is the process of fish and 13 shellfish being drawn into the intake, but are too 14 large to pass through the screen -- debris screens, 15 and, therefore, are caught on the screens. Heat 16 shock is when aquatic organizations are exposed to 17 very high water temperatures resulting from discharge 18 of water from the cooling system itself.
19 Non-contact cooling water from Units 2 and 20 3 is withdrawn from Long Island Sound. When Units 2 21 and 3 are operating at full power, approximately 1.5 22 million gallons per minute are pumped through the 23 cooling system. This represents about 3 percent of 24 mean tidal flow through the Niantic Bay near 25 Millstone.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 The Niantic River winter flounder 2 population has declined to low levels. The National 3 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also known as 4 NOAA Fisheries, Connecticut Department of 5 Environmental Protection, Dominion, and NRC staff 6 agree that the population is being impacted by many 7 different factors, including overfishing, 8 environmental changes, and larval entrainment from 9 Millstone operations. However, there is not agreement 10 on the level of impact from entrainment.
11 NRC reviewed all available information and 12 had discussions with NOAA Fisheries, Connecticut 13 Department of Environmental Protection, Dominion 14 environmental staff, and others. Based on the review 15 and analysis, we concluded that the available 16 information does not allow us to unequivocally link or 17 decouple population declines with Millstone 18 operations.
19 However, the Niantic River stock is at a 20 critically low level and vulnerable to collapse, and 21 that entrainment from Millstone operations is a 22 contributing factor to winter flounder mortality.
23 Therefore, we concluded that entrainment would have a 24 moderate impact to the winter flounder populations in 25 Niantic Bay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
.(202). 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 Entrainment would have a small impact to 2 other populations of fish, shellfish, and other 3 aquatic organisms in Niantic Bay and Long Island 4 Sound. Fish impingement mortality from Millstone 5 operations varies by species from low to high. Fish 6 populations with moderate and high impingement 7 mortality do not appear to have declined as a result 8 of Millstone operations. Therefore, impacts from 9 impingement are considered small.
10 Thermal impacts associated with Millstone 11 operations have been studied since 1979. Eelgrass beds 12 in the vicinity of Millstone have not shown evidence 13 of influence from plant discharges. In addition, 14 discharges comply with the National Pollution 15 Discharge Elimination System permits issued by the 16 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
17 Therefore, impacts from heat shock are considered 18 small.
19 Four transmission lines connect Millstone 20 to the transmission system. Collectively, these lines 21 cover approximately 115 miles, and the corridors that 22 are maintained encompass over 3,000 acres. To protect 23 the public from electric shock, the lines were 24 designed and constructed to meet the National and 25 Electric Safety Code limit of not generating an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 electrical current greater than 5 milliamperes 2 immediately underneath the lines.
3 Health effects from chronic exposure to 4 electromagnetic fields were also considered. Based on 5 a review of studies, the National Institute of 6 Environmental Health Science does not believe that 7 cancer or non-cancer health outcomes show sufficient 8 evidence of a risk to currently warrant a concern.
9 Radiological impacts to workers and the 10 public are Category 1 issues. In the document, it was 11 discussed a little earlier in the question and answer 12 part that there is information in Section 7, Chapter 13 4. I'd also like to point out that there's 14 discussions about radiological phenomena, releases, 15 and the impacts, in Section 2.2.7 of Chapter 2, and in 16 Section 4.7 of Chapter 4.
17 We looked at the effluent release and 18 monitoring program during our site visit. We look at 19 how the gaseous and liquid effluents were treated and 20 released, as well as how the solid wastes were 21 treated, packaged, and shipped. We also looked at how 22 the applicant determines and demonstrates that they 23 are in compliance with the regulations for release of 24 radiological effluents.
25 Doses reported in annual monitoring NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 reports for Millstone were less than .4 percent of the 2 dose limit specified in the regulations. The releases 3 from the plant are well within limits, and resulting 4 offsite potential doses are not expected to increase 5 on a year-to-year basis during the 20-year license 6 renewal.
7 Also, no new and significant information 8 was identified during the staff's review. However, 9 information that was provided is, again, discussed in 10 Section 4.7. Therefore, the impacts are considered 11 small.
12 We considered socioeconomic impacts to 13 housing, services, and offsite land use. Dominion 14 plans to add no more than five additional permanent 15 employees during license renewal. Based on Census 16 Bureau information, there are about 2.9 million people 17 that currently live within 50 miles of Millstone.
18 The additional five workers represents a 19 negligible increase in the population. In 2000, there 20 were about 178,000 housing units, including almost 21 16,800 vacant units available in New London and 22 Middlesex Counties combined. Therefore, adding five 23 workers would not affect availability, value, or 24 rental rates in the existing housing market.
25 Similarly, the existing water system and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 road system can meet the increased demand resulting 2 from these additional workers. Prior to deregulation, 3 taxes paid by Dominion represented about 69 percent of 4 Waterford tax revenue. In 2000, after deregulation, 5 Dominion taxes represented about 36 percent of 6 Waterford revenue.
7 Taxes paid by Dominion during the license 8 renewal period will represent approximately 25 to 30 9 percent of Waterford tax revenues, and would remain 10 relatively constant during the renewal period.
11 Therefore, there likely would not be a change in 12 offsite land use or development.
13 Although there are known cultural sites 14 are Millstone, no activities would affect the sites 15 during the 20-year license renewal period. Therefore, 16 impacts are considered small.
17 We also evaluated whether minority and 18 low-income populations could be disproportionately and 19 adversely affected by the small impacts identified 20 during our socioeconomic and land use analysis related 21 to air, water, land, and socioeconomics. We found no 22 unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as 23 subsistence farming, hunting, or fishing, through 24 which the population could be disproportionately high 25 and adversely affected.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. .234-4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 In addition, we did not identify any 2 location-dependent disproportionately high and adverse 3 impacts affecting these minority and low-income 4 populations. Therefore, offsite impacts to minority 5 and low-income populations from continued operation of 6 Millstone would be small.
7 There are several shallow wells on the 8 Millstone site. One well is used to irrigate 9 community ball fields. This is well less -- this well 10 withdraws less than 100 gallons per day. Millstone 11 uses about 330,000 gallons of water per day for 12 drinking and services. The water comes from Lake 13 Konomoc via the city of New London, and represents 14 about 5.2 percent of New London's daily capacity and 15 about 6 percent of average daily use.
16 There have been no indications that water 17 withdrawals by Millstone has had a significant impact 18 on the alluvial aquifer in the vicinity of the site.
19 Therefore, impacts are considered small.
20 Six terrestrial plant and animal species 21 and eight marine species that are Federally-listed as 22 threatened, endangered, or candidate for listing, are 23 known to occur in the vicinity of Millstone's site.
24 Two Federally-listed endangered terrestrial species --
25 the bald eagle and roseate tern -- have been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 occasionally observed at Millstone. However, neither 2 species nests on or in the vicinity of the site or the 3 associated transmission lines.
4 Habitat for the small whirled pogonia and 5 the New England cotton-tail rabbit may exist on the 6 site or the associated transmission line corridors.
7 Eight Federally-listed marine species have the 8 potential to be in the vicinity of the Millstone site.
9 A short-nosed sturgeon population is located in the 10 lower portion of the Connecticut River, and white 11 whales have been sighted along -- excuse me -- sighted 12 near Long Island Sound.
13 However, none of the Federally-listed 14 species have been sighted in the vicinity of the 15 Millstone site. NRC's preliminary conclusion is that 16 impacts of license renewal would be small.
17 Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish 18 and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries has been 19 initiated to receive concurrence on the NRC 20 determination that license renewal would either have 21 no effect or would not likely adversely affect these 22 species.
23 Dominion implemented a process to ensure 24 that information not addressed or available during the 25 generic environmental impact statement evaluation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 would be reviewed, so that such new and potentially 2 significant information related to renewal of the 3 license for Millstone would be considered.
4 As a part of the process, Dominion 5 reviewed each of the Category 1 issues to verify the 6 conclusions of the generic environmental impact 7 statement remained valid with respect to Millstone.
8 This review was performed by subject matter experts 9 who were also familiar with NEPA issues.
10 The NRC staff also has a process for 11 identifying new and significant information. The 12 search for new information includes review of the 13 applicant's environmental report and their process for 14 discovering and evaluating the significance of new 15 information, review of records of public comments, 16 review of environmental quality standards and 17 regulations, coordination with State, Federal, and 18 local environmental protection and resource agencies, 19 and review of the technical literature.
20 New information discovered by the staff is 21 evaluated for significance using the criteria set 22 forth in the generic environmental impact statement.
23 For Category 1 issues, where new and significant 24 information is identified, reconsideration of the 25 conclusions of those issues is limited in scope to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
,(202), _
234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 assessment of the relevant new and significant 2 information. The scope of the assessment does-not 3 include other facets of the issue that are not 4 affected by the new information.
5 As an example, during scoping, some 6 commenters suggest that operation of Millstone 7 resulted in excess cancers in the population around 8 the plant. The NRC staff implemented the process 9 described above, discussed it in Section 4.7 of 10 Chapter 4, and determined that no new and significant 11 information was identified.
12 The last issue I'd like to talk about from 13 Chapter 4 is cumulative impacts. These impacts that 14 are -- these are impacts that are minor when 15 considered individually, but potentially could be 16 significant when considered with other past, present, 17 or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless 18 of what agency or person undertakes these other 19 actions.
20 The staff considered the cumulative 21 impacts resulting from operation of the cooling water 22 system, operation of the transmission lines, releases 23 of radiation and radiological material, sociological 24 impacts, groundwater use and quality impacts, and 25 threatened or endangered species. These impacts were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 evaluated to the end of the 20-year license renewal 2 term.
3 In addition, the geographical boundary of 4 the analyses were independent, or, I should say, were 5 dependent upon the resources. For instance, the area 6 analyzed for transmission lines was different than the 7 area analyzed for socioeconomics.
8 Our preliminary determination is that any 9 cumulative impacts resulting from the operation of the 10 Millstone plant during the license renewal period 11 would be small, with the exception of entrainment of 12 the winter flounder, which, again, would be a moderate 13 impact.
14 Environmental issues associated with 15 uranium fuel cycle, solid waste management, and 16 decommissioning are all Category 1. Offsite 17 radiological impacts and non-radiological impacts are 18 environmental issues related to the uranium fuel 19 cycle. Environmental issues associated with solid 20 waste management include storage and disposal of non-21 radiological waste, low-level waste, and mixed waste, 22 onsite spent fuel storage, and transportation of spent 23 nuclear fuel and high-level waste to a repository.
24 Environmental issues considered for 25 decommissioning are similar to those with operations NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 of Millstone and include radiation doses, air quality, 2 ecological resources, waste management, water quality, 3 and socioeconomics and land use. No new and 4 significant information was identified, and impacts 5 are considered small.
6 We evaluated a number of different 7 alternatives to Millstone. The "no action" 8 alternative is the scenario where the NRC would not 9 renew the Millstone operating licenses, and Dominion 10 would then decommission Millstone when plant 11 operations cease. Also, no replacement power was 12 considered under this alternative.
13 New generation alternatives considered 14 include a construction operation of coal, natural gas, 15 and new nuclear power plants, both at the Millstone 16 site and at an alternative greenfield or previously 17 unused, undisturbed site.
18 Another alternative considered was 19 purchasing power from other sources to replace the 20 power from Millstone, if operations were to cease.
21 This power could come from within the State, from 22 other States, or from Canada or Mexico.
23 Alternative technologies were considered 24 and included oil-fired plants, wind power, hydro 25 power, solar power, geothermal energy, wood waste, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 other biomass-derived fuel, municipal solid waste, 2 fuel cells, a delayed retirement in the facility, and 3 utility-sponsored conservation.
4 While there are many possible combinations 5 of alternatives discussed to replace power, for 6 purposes of analysis we assumed a combination of 7 alternatives consisting of: 1) natural gas-fired 8 unit, either at the Millstone site or an alternative 9 location, in combination with purchased power from 10 other generators and additional utility-sponsored 11 conservation measures.
12 All of the alternatives have the potential 13 to result in environmental impacts larger than would 14 occur under the proposed action of license renewal.
15 As an example, if an alternative was selected at a 16 site outside of New London County, then socioeconomic 17 impacts would be moderate to large as a result of lost 18 tax revenue for Waterford and an increase in services 19 required and a gain in tax revenue for the county 20 where the new power generation would occur.
21 Similarly, the impacts to land use and 22 ecological resources would be small to moderate to 23 large if a previously undisturbed site was selected 24 for an alternative.
25 Chip?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Ted. Why 2 don't you just stay there and we'll see if there's any 3 questions for you from the audience.
4 Any questions on the draft environmental 5 impact statement presentation you just heard from Dr.
6 Doerr? Nancy, you have a question on one part of this 7 analysis? Alternatives?
8 MS. BURTON: Thank you. A very quick 9 question. I wonder if you would please tell us, who 10 paid for this work?
11 DR. DOERR: We have a -- the University of 12 California, Los Alamos, has a -- receives funding 13 through the Department of Energy that is derived from 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Does Michael or --
16 hold on a minute, Nancy. Do you -- do we want to say 17 anything more about -- these funds come from 18 appropriations from-the general Treasury to the NRC, 19 and the NRC hires consultants, expert consultants, and 20 pays for that. Do you -- anything else? Go ahead.
21 MR. EADS: Just to give you some 22 information. We are a fee recovery organization, so 23 understand that the -- a large portion of the NRC 24 budget, I believe it's 90 percent, comes through fee 25 recovery from utilities, including Dominion Nuclear.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 So, in essence, although the budget of the NRC pays 2 for the national lab activities, that money is derived 3 through fees from utilities.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Johnny, I'm going to 5 have to correct you --
6 MR. EADS: Okay.
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: -- on that. Okay?
8 Because that is not the situation. We are a fee 9 recovery agency, but that -- those fees go into the 10 general Treasury. Okay? Any appropriations we get 11 are from the general Treasury, not from the fees. And 12 I think it's important --
13 MR. EADS: You're absolutely right.
14 FACILITATOR CAMERON: -- for people to 15 understand that.
16 MR. EADS: You're right. The fees that do 17 come from nuclear power plants do go directly into the 18 Treasury. You're right.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. But thank 20 you, Johnny, for at least letting people know that 21 there are fees, because it is an issue that does come 22 up.
23 Any other questions before we go to SAMAs?
24 All right.
25 Oh. Let me get one thing on the record NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 that Michael Steinberg wanted to try to put on.
2 Michael, could you tell us what you wanted to say 3 before, please?
4 MR. STEINBERG: Can you hold on a second, 5 please?
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Sure. Okay. Is 7 that -- Mitzi has a question? All right. Go ahead.
8 Go ahead. Michael Steinberg.
9 MR. STEINBERG: Okay. Before Nancy Burton 10 was making the point that information from scientists 11 in the radiation and public health project -- that was 12 available at a -- a related hearing about this issue 13 -- was not considered in your draft. And I believe 14 Mr. Emch said that he hadn't seen that information.
15 However, in Appendix C in the draft EIS 16 here, it lists information received subsequent to the 17 May -- the last time we got together in May, and that 18 lists, on August 17th of last year, Declaration of 19 Ernest J. Sternglass, in the matter of DNC, Millstone 20 Power Station, Units 2 and 3.
21 Dr. Sternglass is a distinguished 22 scientist who has a long career of studying the links 23 between so-called low-level radiation and human health 24 problems. And I looked high and low through this big, 25 thick document, and I didn't see anything that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 responded to that at all.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you for 3 catching that, Michael. And, again, what we're 4 hearing during the question period are often comments 5 telling us to go back and take a look at certain 6 issues, take a look at something more closely, 7 including the -- Dr. Sternglass' report.
8 All right. Yes, sir.
9 MR. BOWMAN: My name is Peter Bowman. I 10 may not have followed correctly, but there seemed to 11 be -- something was put up there about solid waste, 12 and I'm assuming it has to do with the spent fuel.
13 How can a decision be made on impact of spent fuel on 14 the system when we have no real plan in this country 15 for dealing with spent fuel?
16 The future of Yucca Mountain, which is the 17 designated repository, is in doubt over many, many 18 areas, both technical, legal, and environmental. And 19 the possibilities of moving fuel to Yucca Mountain 20 within the next 20 or 30 years seems very remote.
21 So how can we talk about the impact of 22 spent fuel on this impact -- on this statement here 23 when we don't have a real answer to it, other than to 24 -- talking about putting it into dry cask storage on 25 site, which, to me, makes the site a long-term NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202). 234-4433
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 repository for spent fuel which, my understanding is, 2 is not allowed under the laws of Connecticut.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Two issues here.
4 One is for you, Ted, I think when you referred to 5 solid waste, can you explain what you were referring 6 to? And then, can someone from the NRC staff talk to 7 the issue of how spent fuel -- how spent fuel was 8 considered in this entire process?
9 First, Ted, when solid waste -- you were 10 -- you meant?
11 DR. DOERR: There's a variety of different 12 waste streams that are generated. Some of them are 13 non-radiological trash, materials that would go into 14 a landfill. There is other materials that are mixed 15 waste or are radiologically contaminated, such as low-16 level waste. And that is what I was referring to as 17 solid waste.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: So he was not 19 referring to spent fuel.
20 DR. DOERR: To spent -- no, that's 21 correct.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: But the point you're 23 raising is important. Can we have someone talk to 24 that? Richard?
25 MR. EMCH: Actually, throughout the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 document and throughout the GEIS, we talk about a 2 number of different kinds of waste, including spent 3 fuel, sir. Okay? You're right, there has been a fair 4 amount of activity in the press lately about Yucca 5 Mountain, but the position that the NRC takes at this 6 point is that storage of spent fuel, either in pools 7 or in dry casks, is a safe process.
8 It can be carried on for many years at a 9 nuclear power plant, and that at some point -- we call 10 it the Waste Competence Act -- at some point, we will 11 be able to come up with a repository such as Yucca 12 Falls to place that waste there.
13 MR. BOWMAN: (Inaudible comment from an 14 unmiked location.)
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We have to get you 16 on the record, Peter.
17 MR. BOWMAN: (Inaudible comment from an 18 unmiked location.)
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Peter, we have to 20 get you on the record. Could you just repeat your 21 last sentence?
22 MR. BOWMAN: Yes. We are looking at the 23 spent fuel for at least, by -- by the Yucca Mountain 24 criteria, 10,000 years. It's actually much more than 25 that. It's 240,000 years plus. How can you apply
. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
61 1 this to this environmental impact statement when it's 2 an unknown quantity that's so far out in time that 3 it's impossible to come to any conclusion on it?
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And, Rich, maybe 5 it's not -- I think you said it, but maybe it's not 6 clear to -- how high-level waste disposal is 7 considered within the context of the license renewal 8 process. But maybe if you could succinctly tell us 9 that.
10 MR. EMCH: Okay. I'll try it again, 11 unless -- in case I wasn't clear the first time. And 12 if I'm not clear again, then maybe one of my 13 associates can have a crack at it. Basically, though, 14 the Commission's position, the position of the 15 Commission, is that wastes -- spent fuel -- can be 16 safely stored in pools and dry cask storage on site 17 for a fairly lengthy period of time. I believe it was 18 something in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 years after 19 decommissioning.
20 And if this plant is extended -- if this 21 license is extended, that would be well into the 22 2000s, mid 2000s. And then, after that, the 23 Commission's position is that they have confidence 24 that we will build and make active a waste repository 25 at Yucca Mountain or another one. And I -- you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 that's how the -- that's the decision upon which we 2 base going forward in the license renewal analysis.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And is that 4 laid out in the document? Is that -- is there an 5 explanation of that in there? Or do you have to go to 6 the generic environmental impact statement?
7 MR. EMCH: I don't recall seeing that in 8 the document.
9 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Just for Mr.
10 Bowman's information, if he wants to look at a written 11 explanation.
12 MR. MASNIK: This is Mike Masnik. Look in 13 Chapter 6 of the document in the back of the room, and 14 it -- it lays out basically what Rich has mentioned.
15 And we certainly can talk to you after the meeting as 16 well.
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. I think we 18 need to move on to the next presentation, so that we 19 can get to hear all of your comments.
20 Mitzi, do you have a quick question for 21 us?
22 MS. BOWMAN: Yes, I do have questions.
23 You mentioned the Columbia Healthy Worker Effect 24 Report. It sounded a little confusing to me, because 25 originally the Healthy Worker Effect was discovered or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 outlined by Dr. Mancuso with the help of Dr. Stewart, 2 Alice Stewart, from Great Britain.
3 And the point of that Healthy Worker 4 Effect was that the people hired to work on a regular 5 basis at nuclear plants at the particular site that 6 they were referring to are people at the prime of 7 their life in a healthy condition.
8 Therefore, the effects of radiation are 9 not as powerful on them as it is on infants and old 10 people and children in utero, so that they pointed out 11 that that was not a good basis on which to establish 12 safety standards which are the standards which are now 13 being based -- they are based on.
14 And, therefore, those standards are wrong, 15 and so the way you put it it sounded as though you 16 were saying that it's because the workers -- because 17 radiation doesn't affect the workers that they have 18 the -- that they use the term "healthy worker effect."
19 It seems to me to be quite the opposite, and that --
20 I needed to know about that, and I also needed to know 21 about the environmental justice issue that you raised, 22 the environmental impact.
23 You're talking about -- it sounded to me 24 as though you were talking about just the 25 environmental impact in this area. But you are not --
-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 didn't seem to be addressing the constant flow of 2 waste going to Barnwell and their impacting an 3 African-American community of low income and 4 constantly building up and causing a great deal of 5 trouble and health harm there.
6 So it seems to me that the environmental 7 impact statement doesn't raise that issue, and I 8 wonder why. The question of alternatives also bothers 9 me. You seemed to set your priorities in the wrong 10 direction. I may be wrong about that, but you 11 mentioned first coal, gas, and all kinds of 12 alternatives, which are not generally considered good 13 alternatives.
14 You just barely touched on solar and wind, 15 which, along with environmental conservation and 16 energy efficiency, conservation and energy efficiency 17 you didn't mention at all. And I wonder if that's in 18 your -- was in your purview.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
20 MS. BOWMAN: Thank you.
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Mitzi.
22 Rich, I think we should have Ted answer 23 the environmental justice -- how that analysis is 24 done, and the alternatives issue. Can you just 25 respond to Mitzi on the Columbia study? And then, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 after we answer that, we're going to go to Bob Palla, 2 so that we can get all of our information out, so that 3 we can hear from you.
4 Ted? First of all, can you just talk a 5 little bit about what the traditional environmental 6 justice analysis looks like in terms of scope? And 7 we'll consider your comments -- your question as a 8 comment.
9 DR. DOERR: I think this has to do -- your 10 question, at least the way I'm interpreting it, so you 11 can correct me if I misinterpret it, is really dealing 12 with how broad the analysis should be geographically, 13 and what should be included in the scope of the 14 activity of license renewal.
15 Looking at it from that perspective, my 16 response back is is that this EIS looks at renewal and 17 operations at Millstone. It does not include 18 operations, for example, at Barnwell, because they're 19 not looking for -- they're not requesting a license 20 renewal. And that's where the issues of environmental 21 justice at Barnwell would be analyzed.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And the 23 alternatives? The question was it didn't seem like we 24 had taken into account energy conservation.
25 DR. DOERR: We did look at energy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 conservation. As a matter of fact, that was part of 2 a combined alternative that we analyzed in Chapter 8.
3 Related to some of the other alternative power 4 generation capabilities, they also talked in Chapter 5 8, although most of those -- and I'm thinking off the 6 top of my head -- many of those at least we found are 7 still not economically viable or, in fact, actually 8 have larger environmental impacts than the three that 9 we looked at a little bit -- wrote to a little bit 10 more intensively in the EIS.
11 MS. BOWMAN: But solar and wind have an 12 entirely different --
13 DR. DOERR: Yes, ma'am.
14 MS. BOWMAN: Okay.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Do you have 16 anything to say quickly on Columbia?
17 MR. EMCH: Yes. The things you were 18 talking about, ma'am, are indeed additional parts of 19 the healthy worker syndrome, so to speak. They are --
20 they tend to be very healthy people to start with, 21 maybe healthier than the general population because of 22 their age and health. They also receive good health 23 benefits and regular checkups and that sort of thing, 24 and then, therefore, that's all part of the healthy 25 worker.
-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 I did not mean to imply that they are 2 healthy because they're exposed to radiation. I hope 3 that's not what you heard. Okay? But, in fact, their 4 -- the standards for those folks are set considerably 5 higher than the standards for regular people in the 6 population.
7 The standards for a worker are 5 rem per 8 year. The standards for a member of the public are 25 9 millirem per year.
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
11 MR. EMCH: That's a huge difference.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you very much.
13 We're going to have -- Mitzi, we're going 14 to --
15 MS. BOWMAN: Does that study include the 16 transients?
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Pardon me?
18 MS. BOWMAN: Does that study include the 19 transients?
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We'll --
21 MS. BOWMAN: The people who are sent in to 22 the most dangerous --
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We'll have -- we'll 24 have Richard talk to you offline about that. We're 25 going to have a quick presentation now on the SAMAs, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 and then Richard is going to tell you about how to 2 submit comments, and then we're going to go to you for 3 public comment. This is Bob Palla.
4 MR. PALLA: Hi. My name is Bob Palla, and 5 I'm with the Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch of 6 NRC. And I'm going to be discussing the environmental 7 impacts of postulated accidents.
8 These impacts are described in Section 5 9 of the generic environmental impact statement, or 10 GEIS. The GEIS evaluates two classes of accidents --
11 design basis accidents and severe accidents. Design 12 basis accidents are those accidents that both the 13 licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the 14 plant can safely respond to a broad spectrum of 15 postulated accidents without risk to the public.
16 The environmental impacts of design basis 17 accidents are evaluated during the initial licensing 18 process, and the ability of the plant to withstand 19 these accidents has to be demonstrated before the 20 plant is granted a license. Most importantly, a 21 licensee is required to maintain an acceptable design 22 and performance capability throughout the life of the 23 plant, including any extended life operation.
24 Since the licensee has to demonstrate 25 acceptable plant performance for the design basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 accidents throughout the life of the plant, the 2 Commission has determined that the environmental 3 impact of design basis accidents are of small 4 significance.
5 Neither the licensee nor the NRC is 6 available -- is aware of any new and significant 7 information on the capability of the Millstone plant 8 to withstand design basis accidents. Therefore, the 9 staff concludes that there are no impacts related to 10 design basis accidents that are beyond those already 11 discussed in the general environmental impact 12 statement.
13 The second category of accidents evaluated 14 in the GEIS are severe accidents. Severe accidents 15 are, by definition, more severe than design basis 16 accidents because they could result in substantial 17 damage to the reactor core. The Commission found in 18 the GEIS that the risk of severe accident -- of a 19 severe accident in terms of atmospheric releases, 20 fallout onto open bodies of open, releases to 21 groundwater, and societal impacts are small for all 22 plants.
23 Nevertheless, the Commission determined 24 that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 25 considered for all plants that have not done so. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 refer to these alternatives as severe accident 2 mitigation alternatives, or SAMAs.
3 The SAMA evaluation is a site-specific 4 assessment and is a Category 2 issue, as explained 5 earlier. The SAMA review for Millstone Units 2 and 3 6 is summarized in Section 5.2 of the GEIS supplement, 7 and described in more detail in Appendices H and I of 8 the supplement.
9 The purpose of performing the SAMA 10 evaluation is to ensure that plant changes with the 11 potential for improving severe accident safety 12 performance are identified and evaluated. The scope 13 of the potential plant improvements that were 14 considered included hardware modifications, procedure 15 changes, training program enhancements, as well as 16 other changes -- basically, a full spectrum of 17 potential changes.
18 And the scope of the SAMAs considered 19 include SAMAs that would prevent core damage as well 20 as SAMAs that would improve containment performance 21 given that a core damage event were to occur.
22 Next slide.
23 The SAMA evaluation consists of a four-24 step process. The first step is to characterize 25 overall plant risk and leading contributors to risk.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 This typically involves the extensive use of the 2 plant-specific probabilistic risk assessment study, 3 which is also known as the PRA.
4 The PRA is a study that identifies the 5 different combinations of system failures and human 6 errors that would be required for an accident to 7 progress to either core damage or containment failure, 8 and the probability of these events.
9 The second step in the evaluation is to 10 identify potential improvements that could further 11 reduce risk. The information from the PRA, such as 12 the dominant accident sequences, is used to help 13 identify plant improvements that would have the 14 greatest impact in reducing risk. Improvements 15 identified in other NRC and industry studies, as well 16 as SAMA analyses for other plants, are also 17 considered.
18 The third step in the evaluation is to 19 quantify the overall -- the risk reduction potential 20 and implementation costs for each improvement. The 21 risk reduction and implementation costs for each SAMA 22 are typically estimated using a bounding approach.
23 The risk reduction is generally overestimated by 24 assuming that the plant improvement is completely 25 effective in eliminating the accident sequences it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 intended to address.
2 The implementation costs are generally 3 underestimated by neglecting certain cost factors such 4 as maintenance costs and surveillance costs associated 5 with the improvement. The risk reduction and cost 6 estimates are used in the final step to determine 7 whether implementation of any of the improvements can 8 be justified.
9 In determining whether an improvement is 10 justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors. The 11 first is whether the improvement is cost beneficial.
12 In other words, is the estimated benefit greater than 13 the estimated implementation cost of the SAMA?
14 The second factor is whether the 15 improvement provides a significant reduction in total 16 risk. For example, does it eliminate a sequence or a 17 containment failure mode that contributes to a large 18 fraction of the plant risk?
19 The third factor is whether the risk 20 reduction is associated with aging effects during the 21 period of extended operation, in which case if it was 22 we would consider implementation of the SAMA as part 23 of the license renewal process.
24 Next slide.
25 The preliminary results of the SAMA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 analysis for Millstone are summarized on this slide.
2 Approximately 190 candidate improvements were 3 identified for each of the operating units, based on 4 review of the plant-specific PRAs, relevant industry 5 and NRC studies on severe accidents, and SAMA analyses 6 performed for other plants.
7 The licensee reduced the number of 8 candidate SAMAs based on a multi-step screening 9 process. Factors considered during this screening 10 included whether the SAMA is not applicable to 11 Millstone due to design differences, and whether the 12 SAMA has already been addressed in the existing 13 Millstone design procedures or training program.
14 The screening resulted in a set of 44 15 SAMAs for Unit 2 and 52 SAMAs for Unit 3 that were 16 further evaluated. A more detailed assessment of the 17 conceptual design and costs was then performed for 18 each of the remaining SAMAs. This is described in 19 detail in Appendices H and I of the GEIS supplement.
20 The detailed cost-benefit analysis shows 21 that one SAMA would be cost beneficial at Unit 2.
22 This SAMA involves enhancing the procedures for loss 23 of the reactor building closed cooling water system 24 with the objective of cooling down and depressurizing 25 the reactor coolant system prior to failure of a seal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 system on the reactor coolant pumps.
2 Next slide, please.
3 Two additional SAMAs could be cost 4 beneficial if they can be implemented without a 5 hardware modification. The first SAMA, which is 6 applicable to Unit 2, involves using a portable 7 generator to energize the field on the emergency 8 diesel generator, allowing the generator to be started 9 in a station blackout event or restarted after battery 10 depletion. This would restore electrical power to the 11 plant.
12 The second SAMA, which is applicable to 13 Unit 3, involves developing a procedure for manually 14 operating and controlling the turbine-driven auxiliary 15 feedwater pump when control power is lost. This would 16 assure continued heat removal from the reactor through 17 the steam generators.
18 In summary, the results of the SAMA 19 evaluation indicate that three SAMAs are potentially 20 cost beneficial. However, none of the cost beneficial 21 SAMAs are related to managing the effects of plant
- 22. aging. Accordingly, these SAMAs are not required to 23 be implemented at Millstone as part of license 24 renewal.
25 Now, although they're not required as part NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 of renewal, the licensee plans to further evaluate 2 these SAMAs and complete any implementation prior to 3 the period of extended operation.
4 That completes my presentation. Any 5 questions?
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Bob.
7 Questions on severe accident before we go 8 to a wrap-up from Rich on how to submit comments? Is 9 this on severe accident, Mitzi?
10 MS. BOWMAN: Yes, we'll call it accidents.
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Let's get you 12 on the record.
13 MS. BOWMAN: Yes. I want to ask you 14 whether you include what the administration, the 15 present administration of our country, is constantly 16 beating on, and that is the question of sabotage and 17 terrorism, and now the question of natural disasters 18 by the way they're -- the disaster in the Indian Ocean 19 included a nuclear plant. And have you considered all 20 these aspects in your report?
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay, great. Bob?
22 MR. PALLA: Regarding the first item, the 23 answer is no, we -- within the -- we're driven 24 primarily by the scope of the probabilistic risk 25 assessments, and the capability of these kind of tools NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 to provide useful information for the analysis. So 2 with regard to your alluding to terrorist acts, this 3 is outside the scope of the risk assessments that 4 we've done here. This is being addressed as a current 5 operating plant issue.
6 I don't think you'd want to wait, you 7 know, 10 years for license renewal before you worry 8 about it. We're worrying about this right now. And 9 I don't know if anybody here wants to speak to that 10 issue.
11 But the answer with regard to severe 12 accident mitigation alternatives is that that was not 13 an explicit consideration in the risk models or in the 14 benefits estimates that we used.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And tsunamis --
16 MR. PALLA: With regard to tsunamis, we do 17 draw on external event analyses that are available.
18 And in the case of Millstone, they have a 19 probabilistic risk assessment study, and they have 20 other studies that are used to look at effects like 21 that. Tsunamis -- I'm not an expert on external 22 events, but I suspect that that would have been a 23 threat that would have been screened out based on low 24 probability.
25 But we do look at seismic events, we look NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 at fire events, but tsunamis I don't believe is one of 2 the risk, you know, significant contributors.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you 4 very much, Bob.
5 Rich, can you just tell us -- tell people 6 how to submit comments? And we really want to get to 7 hear from the people who have signed up to speak, so 8 we're going to go to the end of this right now, Peter.
9 MS. BESADE: (Inaudible comment from an 10 unmiked location.)
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We're going to have 12 to get you on the transcript. And let's try to do 13 this quickly, so that we can get on with it.
14 MS. BESADE: Certainly. I'm --
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Give us your name, 16 please.
17 MS. BESADE: My name is Cynthia Besade, 18 and I'm actually -- nice to meet you. I'm concerned 19 because the entire plant is built on an ancient 20 earthquake fault. The probabilities of movement, 21 seismic movement, are there. How could you possibly 22 calculate that that was of low impact?
23 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Can we try to put 24 this in context for Cynthia about how seismic relates 25 to license renewal? And, Bob, I don't know if that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 you, but let's try to do that for Cynthia.
2 MS. BESADE: And let me clarify even more.
3 You talk about, you know, tsunamis being of a low, you 4 know, statistical value. However, earthquakes are not 5 of low statistical value. That can happen at any 6 time. But, you know, these acts of nature are 7 something that we don't have any control over.
8 If we were to experience what was just 9 experienced a couple of weeks ago in the Asian 10 countries, how in the world are we going to handle 11 something like that? That is going to -- you know, 12 the earth is going to open up. Those buildings that 13 are moved we're going to have leakage of any 14 containment that's inside of the buildings.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And the important 16 question here is not necessarily what the probability 17 is. It's that we need to tell the public how we look 18 at seismic. Okay?
19 MR. PALLA: Well, let me explain. For 20 starters --
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you.
22 MR. PALLA: -- the plant is designed to 23 accommodate seismic events up to a certain level.
24 Now, what you look at is there's a full spectrum of 25 seismic events. There can be relatively frequent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 seismic events of a small magnitude, and then as --
2 naturally, there's still a chance of having a greater 3 magnitude earthquake. But the probabilities of those 4 events decrease as the size of the earthquake 5 increases.
6 So when you consider the earth -- the 7 plant is designed to accommodate earthquakes up to a 8 certain G value, with high confidence of survival.
9 And then, even beyond that, we have looked, as part of 10 the -- it was called the individual plant examination 11 for external events, and also in the Millstone 12 probabilistic risk assessment study, they looked at 13 the likelihood of larger magnitude earthquakes and the 14 ability of equipment to maintain its functionality in 15 those larger events.
16 And when a plant is designed to 17 accommodate a certain level earthquake, it does that 18 with high confidence. But even for a larger event, 19 this equipment would continue to operate, although 20 you would tend to have an increased probability that 21 it will fail, and eventually it will fail but at a 22 much higher level, and there will be a certain 23 probability assigned to that very large earthquake, 24 which is actually quite small.
25 And this is the subject of a lot of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 deliberations by seismologists about the curves that 2 depict the probability as a function of the seismic 3 hazards.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And, Bob, could you 5 -- could you --
6 MS. BESADE: (Inaudible comment from an 7 unmiked location.)
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia? Cynthia?
9 MS. BESADE: But I have --
10 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, we need to 11 get you on the record. And, unfortunately, we do need 12 to finish this, so we can get to comments. Okay?
13 MS. BESADE: (Inaudible comment from an 14 unmiked location.)
15 FACILITATOR-CAMERON: Cynthia, we need to 16 get you on the record. Okay? Why don't you make your 17 statement, and then we're going to go on. Okay? And 18 then they can talk to you in more detail about it.
19 MS. BESADE: Well, what I'm concerned with 20 is those -- as we experience an earthquake, and we 21 have the buildings reinforced, we're at sea level.
22 We're at a place where flooding is going to exist.
23 We're going to have major contamination that's not 24 going to be able to be contained in a building or in 25 a containment structure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 MR. PALLA: Well, the seismic is really a 2 mechanical shock-loading. It's separate from a 3 flooding scenario. It's separate from a tsunami.
4 MS. BESADE: It would be a sequential 5 event. We would have an earthquake, which would be 6 followed by flooding, which would be followed by 7 interruption of the structures. We'd have openings 8 for that radioactive element to be exposed into the 9 environment. How can that be put down as, you know, 10 just a small thing of value, or small impact?
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. If you can 12 think of a way to explain this, not now, to Cynthia, 13 that would be helpful. And I'm not necessarily saying 14 wait until after the meeting, but think about what her 15 concerns are and let's see if we can -- if we can 16 address that. But at least we have you on the record 17 with your concerns.
18 Rich, can you tell people how to submit 19 comments? And then we're going to get into the -- to 20 hearing some more from all of you. I know there's 21 people who have to get a ferry, and we want to get 22 them on, as well as hear from everybody else. Okay?
23 MS. BESADE: Thank you very much.
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: You're welcome.
25 MR. EMCH: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Richard?
2 MR. EMCH: I'm going to go past this 3 slide. It's been up for about five minutes at this 4 point. I think you've all had a chance to read it.
5 You know what I was getting ready to say.
6 Okay. Next slide.
7 Let's talk a little bit about the schedule 8 from here. The draft has been issued. We'll be 9 accepting comments until March. The deadline for 10 comments is March 2nd. And we'll be issuing the final 11 draft -- the final EIS in July of 2005, and it will be 12 addressing all of the comments that are sent in.
13 Next, please.
14 I'm the point of contact at the NRC for 15 this review. The phone numbers are right there. The 16 documents are available at the Waterford Public 17 Library and at the Thames River Compass Library for 18 the Three Rivers Community College. If you want to 19 look at them -- actually, if you're here, and you want 20 to look at them, grab a copy and take it home with 21 you.
22 It can also be viewed on our website at 23 that web address that's indicated there. That also 24 has a pot button, if you will, on the website where 25 you can submit comments right there.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 You can submit them by mail to this 2 address. You can drop them by in person at our 3 offices in Rockville, Maryland. Or you can send your 4 comments to this e-mail address, MillstoneEIS@nrc.gov.
5 A number of you have already made use of that address.
6 That concludes the discussion about how to 7 get comments to us.
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
9 Thank you, Rich, and thank you for your patience also.
10 We're going to go to the second part of 11 the meeting and hear from all of you. I just want to 12 reiterate that because we do have a number of 13 speakers, I'm going to ask you to follow a five-minute 14 guideline. And I apologize in advance if I have to 15 ask you to wrap up.
16 And we're going to try to get to the 17 people who have to catch the ferry first, and others 18 who have commitments.
19 Five minutes is enough to at least alert 20 us to what your concerns are. We have already heard 21 some of those. The public comment period is your 22 chance to respond in detail and tell us what we should 23 consider in the environmental impact statement.
24 Before we go to other members of the 25 public, I just want to give the license applicant an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 opportunity to talk about what their vision, their 2 rationale, is here. And we have Mr. Scase from the 3 company, from Dominion, who is going to talk to us, 4 and he is the Director of Nuclear Licensing and 5 Safety. Is that right, sir?
6 MR. SCASE: Yes, that's correct.
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right. And we 8 have a copy of his presentation for the record.
9 MR. SCASE: Thank you.
10 MS. BURTON: (Inaudible comment from an 11 unmiked location.)
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Let's let him 13 make his comment, because that's usually what we do.
14 MS. BURTON: (Inaudible comment from an 15 unmiked location.)
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay? Because your 17 comments are much more important in a sense. This is 18 part of the backdrop. So we're going to let him do 19 it, so that we can get on with it. Thank you.
20 Go ahead, Steve.
21 MR. SCASE: Good afternoon. My name is 22 Steve Scase. I am the Director of Nuclear Safety and 23 Licensing at Dominion's Millstone Nuclear Power 24 Station and have been working in the nuclear industry 25 for 34 years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 I'd like to thank the Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission and the town of Waterford for providing 3 another opportunity for the public to speak on this 4 important issue. As you know, the Millstone power 5 station is seeking to renew the operating licenses for 6 its two operating reactors -- Millstone Unit 2 and 7 Millstone Unit 3 -- for 20 additional years.
8 As part of this rigorous process, we have 9 conducted a study which took place over a period of 10 almost two years analyzing potential environmental 11 impacts associated with the additional years of 12 operation. At the environmental scoping public
- 13 meeting last May, I related how Dominion's license 14 renewal team has spent many hours carefully preparing 15 the environmental report.
16 In fact, we spent thousands of hours 17 collecting and analyzing the data. This data not only 18 included site-specific issues, but also compared 19 national and worldwide industry knowledge and 20 experience.
21 Following this submission, hundreds of 22 additional hours have been spent supporting the 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's detailed review of the 24 report to ensure that Millstone's continued operation 25 will provide Connecticut and New England with safe, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 reliable, and environmentally responsible power well 2 into this century.
3 The NRC's comprehensive evaluation of the 4 environmental issues associated with license renewal 5 for the site has resulted in the draft environmental 6 impact statement which is the subject of this meeting.
7 I would like to take this opportunity to 8 thank the NRC review team for their hard work.
9 Dominion recognizes the complexity of the issues that 10 were evaluated and believes that the team did a very 11 good job in the review.
12 As you know, Millstone is a vital 13 component of New England's energy infrastructure and 14 provides the equivalent of roughly 48 percent of 15 Connecticut' s electricity, which is enough to meet the 16 needs of more than one million homes and businesses 17 without generating greenhouse gases that contribute to 18 global warming.
19 As the electricity demands of New England 20 and Connecticut grow in the coming years, Millstone 21 will clearly play an important role in meeting these 22 needs. The men and women of Millstone strongly 23 believe in enhancing the quality of life in 24 southeastern Connecticut through volunteerism, public 25 service, and our commitment to protecting the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234-4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 environment.
2 Whether this participation is through our 3 involvement in the United Way, or working in a local 4 park, or building a playground for a school in need, 5 we are involved in our community. We view this 6 participation as part of our responsibility to the 7 communities in which we live and work.
8 Because we raise our families in these 9 communities, we understand the importance of operating 10 Millstone in a safe and environmentally responsible 11 manner. Ensuring that Millstone's continued operation 12 meets or exceeds the NRC's stringent guidelines for 13 operations is important to us, not only as employees 14 but as citizens and neighbors in our communities as 15 well.
16 Dominion has long been recognized as a 17 leader in the nuclear industry, and each day we 18 maintain our commitment to operating Millstone safely, 19 reliably, and economically. After carefully weighing 20 all of the factors associated with renewal of the 21 Millstone Unit 2 and Unit 3 operating licenses, we are 22 confident that Millstone will continue to play an 23 important role in providing Connecticut and New 24 England with safe, reliable, and environmentally 25 responsible energy for many years to come.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 Thank you.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you, 3 Mr. Scase.
4 We're going to extend a courtesy to those 5 who did travel a long way, and we're going to go to, 6 first of all, Mr. Joshua Horton. And Mr. Horton is 7 the supervisor of the town of Southold in Southold, 8 New York.
9 And then, the next two speakers, we're 10 going to go to our Michael Domino and Marie Domenici.
11 Thank you. All right.
12 MR. HORTON: Thank you, Chip. I certainly 13 appreciate the courtesy of being allowed to go first, 14 if you will, in the comment period.
15 Just one thing I want to mention -- my 16 name is Josh Horton. I'm the supervisor of the town 17 of Southold, your neighbor across the Long Island 18 Sound, about 10 miles, if you will, to your southeast.
19 A supervisor, for those of you who don't 20 know, is -- and don't understand the New York State 21 construct of government -- don't try to learn it, but 22 the supervisor essentially is your First Selectman.
23 I'm elected by -- I represent 22,000 people in the 24 town of Southold, the county of Suffolk, in the State 25 of New York.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 And just as a point of order and reference 2 to generic environmental impact statements, and how 3 they are run, and the public hearings that are 4 associated with them, with all due respect, Chip, you 5 can take the five-minute rule and put it out in the 6 parking lot.
7 This is a public hearing, and under at 8 least New York State rule -- law, and I'm sure it's 9 the same as Connecticut State law, you cannot limit 10 the public's time to speak at a public hearing. You 11 can do so at your public meetings while you're 12 addressing resolutions. You cannot legally limit 13 people's time to speak at a public hearing.
14 So I may need a little more than five 15 minutes.
16 (Applause.)
17 And I don't come here as an adversary, but 18 I do come here as a staunch representative of the 19 public. Your boss is the NRC. Mr. Millstone, your 20 boss is Dominion. My boss is 22,000 people in the 21 town of Southold.
22 (Applause.)
23 I do have some prepared remarks, and I 24 heard so much here today that I'm going to try to 25 stick to my prepared remarks, because I think so many NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 of you have so much more technical expertise and 2 knowledge as it relates to Millstone and how it 3 affects your community.
4 I want to talk a little bit about how it 5 affects the community of Southold town. Now, 6 understand, we receive no tax benefit. We receive no 7 power in the town of Southold from Millstone. We 8 don't want it. We don't want the tax revenue, and we 9 don't want the power. We don't want it.
10 We said no to Shoreham, and we won, and 11 that was because we, the citizens, brought the power 12 of the government to bear. Now, I may be the power of 13 a small government, a very small government, in fact; 14 I'm still the power of the government of the oldest 15 town in the State of New York, still 22,000 strong, 16 still in a congressional district in the State of New 17 York and the United States House of Representatives 18 that carries a lot of weight, still with two very 19 powerful United States Senators, and I intend to bring 20 that power of the government to bear on this issue 21 because, quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, your 22 generic environmental impact statement is flawed, 23 direly flawed, gravely flawed.
24 To get down to it -- and I think Mitzi hit 25 it on the head -- I -- you know, it's the residents NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 who always say it so clearly. You put more effort 2 into studying the effects of Millstone on winter 3 flounder in this generic environmental impact 4 statement than you did on me. Than you did on me, a 5 living, breathing person, that is able to hop on a 6 ferry and come here in an hour and a half on the 7 ferry. More effort went into the environmental 8 impact, the impacts on winter flounder.
9 Now, let me tell you something. Winter 10 flounder are running strong in our neck of the woods.
11 They're running strong. You do the math. We've got 12 winter flounder in Poconac Bay. We've got winter 13 flounder off the tip of Montock. It's running strong, 14 and it's running strong because the New York State 15 Department of Environmental Conservation has set 16 regulations and limits in regard to how they're 17 caught, protecting their habitat.
18 And I'm sure the EPA or their 19 environmental organization over here has done the same 20 -- protected the habitat, protected the limits.
21 Therefore, if they're not flourishing in or about the 22 bottom feeding grounds of Millstone, you're going to 23 have to draw your own conclusions. You've done it 24 here in this environmental impact statement. I'd just 25 like to challenge that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 And I'm going to now move to my prepared 2 remarks. I have several comments and strenuous 3 objections to make to the DEIS today, which will be 4 further supported by more extensive written comments 5 in the near future.
6 That is necessarily the case, because even 7 though a portion of my town -- Southold town -- is 8 located within the EPZ of Millstone, and the rest of 9 my town is just a short ferry ride away, my office 10 received no official notification of these hearings.
11 That's the first I'm hearingof a scoping session.
12 Now, I've run GISs, all right? I've done 13 that. I've been the head of it, the lead agency, the 14 whole nine yards, and I can tell you that notification 15 is the fruit, the very essence, of getting the 16 public's input. Because if we don't know about it, we 17 can't input it. All right? I knew nothing of this.
18 When you have an incident at Millstone, 19 you call Governor Rell, and you call me. Yet I knew 20 nothing -- nothing -- of this hearing today. I knew 21 nothing of the scoping session in May. And you bet 22 your ass, if I had, I'd have been here.
23 Your EIS, the process, not even the EIS, 24 skip the EIS, the process alone is flawed, and you've 25 got to start over. You've got to start over with all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 of us involved.
2 Steve Mizull -- does he still work for 3 you? Does Steve Mizull still work for you? I haven't 4 heard from him since the last time you had a minor 5 incident -- release of radioactive material in March 6 of 2003. I have residents who live within the EPZ of 7 Millstone that I have to evacuate in the event that 8 you have a situation that would warrant that.
9 So, in fact, the notification I raise as 10 my first objection to the document and the process as 11 a whole. Not one person from the NRC, not one person 12 from Dominion, not one person at any stage of our 13 emergency management chain of command, or our elected 14 Federal delegation, contacted my office about this 15 hearing.
16 And make no mistake about it, a portion of 17 my township -- Fishers Island and the Federally-held 18 property under the Department of Homeland Security, 19 which was the United States Department of Agriculture, 20 Plum Island, which is also within my township, exists 21 within 10-mile EPZ of Millstone. And, furthermore, 22 the rest of my township lies a breath away from the 23 EPZ boundary.
24 To think that a simple notification to an 25 affected municipality was overlooked undermines the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202)234-4433
94 1 credibility of this process at the starting gate.
2 I object that the DEIS or GEIS -- don't 3 you love when us government people start talking in 4 acronyms -- I object that the GEIS contains no 5 evacuation plan for the residents, or no reference to 6 evacuation, for residents of Southold town or 7 elsewhere on eastern Long Island.
8 The geography of Long Island creates an 9 extremely dangerous situation for those residents. I 10 don't know if you know anything about Long Island, but 11 we can't get off of Long Island on your average work 12 day in an organized fashion. You try and get on the 13 Long Island Expressway and head to Manhattan between 14 the hours of 6:00 and 8:00, and you're going to be 15 sitting in a parking lot.
16 Throw a little release of radioactive 17 material in that parking lot, and now it turns to a 18 mess of cars tailgating and creating incredible 19 accidents and anxiety among the people. At the very 20 end of a narrow strip of land there is only one 21 direction to travel in the case of an emergency. I'm 22 just speaking specifically about the town of Southold 23 and the North Fork.
24 At the end of this very strip of land, one 25 direction to travel in the case of an emergency, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 that direction is west. Now I'm curious to know how 2 many other nuclear power plants have municipalities 3 within the 10-mile EPZ that have only one direction 4 they can travel over land?
5 Name one in the United States of America.
6 Trojan in Portland? I don't know. The one in 7 Delaware? No. Even here in Waterford you can go 8 north, east, or west. God help us. We have two 9 country roads upon which to travel. And though we may 10 be 11 miles, as opposed to 10, away from Millstone, we 11 have two small country roads that cannot handle the 12 traffic of our annual pumpkin season, for God's sakes.
13 Halloween time rolls around, we can't get 14 out of Southold. People are buying jack-o-lanterns.
15 You expect us to get out of Southold town on a Sunday 16 afternoon after you've blown the stack at Millstone?
17 You've got to be kidding me.
18 We are in the year 2005. I come from a 19 generation of people that have grown up protecting the 20 environment, and I come from a generation of people 21 that have grown up exploring alternative mechanisms 22 for electricity and for -- to meet our power needs.
23 You are operating on mid- '50s technology, 24 and it's just not acceptable in this day and age.
25 Shake your head, Mr. Dominion, but that is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 clearly the case.
2 There is, in some cases, only one road on 3 which to travel -- New York State Route 25. By the 4 time us North Forkers reach mid or western Long 5 Island, we will be lined up on the Long Island 6 Expressway behind the millions of other Long Island 7 residents who have the same one and only direction in 8 which to travel.
9 This is a natural recipe for a manmade 10 disaster. That must be avoided.
11 I understand that the 10-mile EPZ is a 12 product of Federal regulation. The GEIS is an 13 official government process within which you have the 14 opportunity to address this matter. You have the 15 opportunity to address this matter through the Federal 16 Government, through the United States Senate, through 17 the United States House of Representatives, in the 18 context of the EIS, because that's what an EIS is 19 about.
20 It's about identifying problems and 21 providing alternatives and mitigation measures. So 22 under the guise of this EIS, you have this 23 opportunity.
24 To the extent that the drafters of the 25 DEIS or GEIS seek to avoid creating an evacuation plan NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 for eastern Long Island, on the purported grounds that 2 Federal regulations only require such plans to do so 3 within a 10-mile radius, they should and must consider 4 the extreme circumstances that are present, and, 5 therefore, extend the Millstone EPZ as it relates to 6 the North Fork of Long Island.
7 The North Fork of Long Island is directly 8 across the Long Island Sound. I can go to Horton 9 Point in Southold, and on a clear day I can see 10 Millstone. On a foggy day, I can see Millstone from 11 one end.
12 Strong winds from the north and northeast 13 often blow across the water directly to our shores.
14 We are the first affected residents to the south of 15 this plant. Southold town residents have only two 16 small country roads on which to travel, and only one 17 direction in which to go. As I mentioned before, that 18 direction is west. That takes one further away from 19 Millstone Nuclear Power plant.
20 To say that we are beyond the affected 21 area is false and cannot be the basis for a proper 22 EIS. With that knowledge, I maintain that it is 23 imperative that the NRC expands the scope of its 24 evacuation planning to a radius that encompasses the 25 entire North Fork of Long Island.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 I am requesting that a fully-funded 2 Federal emergency management study of Southold town's 3 unique geographic challenges, and how this relates to 4 the threat of a radioactive release at the Millstone 5 power plant, be undertaken as part of this GEIS, and 6 that the GEIS be considered incomplete without it.
7 And, furthermore, that no permits for this 8 facility be granted until such data is compiled, 9 disseminated, thoroughly discussed in public, and its 10 findings implemented. If this cannot be accomplished 11 -- and I'm sure this cannot be accomplished by July --
12 so, gentlemen, you're going to have to hold this open.
13 If this cannot be accomplished, then I call for the 14 closure of the Millstone Nuclear Power plant.
15 (Applause.)
16 Since this is a matter of Federal concern, 17 and this is the subject of Federal regulation, it is 18 crucial that the NRC seek and heed the input of 19 Federal elected officials in the surrounding areas 20 regarding the concerns of the constituents.
21 I call upon the NRC -- and this I hope is 22 reflected in your responses -- I call upon the NRC to 23 request input and guidance from United States Senators 24 Schumer, Clinton, Lieberman, and Dodd. And I don't 25 want it from their aides. I think it's got to come NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 from their mouths. I think you have to have a 2 conference, a senatorial conference, and seek their 3 input.
4 The same must be sought from Governors 5 Rell and Pataki. In addition, NRC must seek the 6 counsel and input from Representative Tim Bishop of 7 the First Congressional District of New York, and his 8 colleagues in Connecticut. The testimony of these 9 officials must be incorporated into the GEIS and 10 addressed within.
11 The EIS should not move forward until such 12 input is formally sought and integrated into the 13 document.
14 Ladies and gentlemen, I have made several 15 points, recommendations, and requests on behalf of the 16 22,000 year-round residents that I represent. Mind 17 you, in the summertime and on the weekends, our 18 population doubles and, again, triples. On behalf of 19 these people, I demand they all -- all of these 20 remarks be addressed within the context of this formal 21 EIS.
22 I don't look at this as a stumbling block.
23 I look at this as a turning point -- a turning point 24 for our communities, a turning point for how the 25 United States of America can address its energy needs, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 and a turning point for the NRC to not be a promoter 2 of nuclear power, but to be a regulator of nuclear 3 power, which I believe is well within the charter of 4 your organization -- an organization, quite frankly, 5 that these all -- these people here fund on a daily 6 basis.
7 I also want to enter into the record --
8 and I'm going to read through a few of these -- and I 9 know that you're itching over here, Chip, to get me 10 off the podium.
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: No.
12 MR. HORTON: I've been in your position 13 before. I've run these meetings, and I know exactly 14 how you feel.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: I have to ask you --
16 MR. HORTON: However --
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: -- we're giving you 18 some leeway because of the --
19 MR. HORTON: Right.
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: -- importance of 21 your position, but I want to clarify, the five-minute 22 rule is so that we can hear from everybody else.
23 MR. HORTON: Then you're going to --
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: So can you --
25 MS. MERRILL: Come on. He's a lot more NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 important than you are. Please let him finish.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: I know. That's 3 true.
4 MR. HORTON: Well, no, it's -- we're all 5 important here. Thank you. That's flattering.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Can you wrap up, 7 though, for us?
8 MR. HORTON: I'm going to wrap it up.
9 But, again, I understand your five-minute rule, but 10 your five-minute rule is applying to the licensing of 11 a nuclear power plant.
12 MS. MERRILL: That's right.
13 MR. HORTON: So each one of these people 14 deserves a little more than five minutes. Listen, 15 I've been on the other end. I've run public meetings, 16 I do it every week. And sometimes I'm sitting up 17 there thinking, "Wow, I wish you'd stop talking."
18 (Laughter.)
19 I know how you feel. All right? I know 20 how you feel.
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Well --
22 MR. HORTON: I also have -- what I want 23 entered into the official record is a portion of the 24 GAO report that was done on Millstone and Indian 25 Point. And this has to be entered into the EIS, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 because it's applicable to my request that it be 2 looked into within the context of the EIS.
3 And this is not in regard to my request 4 for the 10-mile EPZ being expanded. This is within 5 the 10-mile EPZ. This is within the town of Southold 6 that is affected by the Federally regulated or 7 standard of 10-mile emergency protection zone. And in 8 the GAO, which, mind you, is a federally -- is a 9 Federal agency, the GAO reports -- this is a 10 compliance review matrix for Fisher' s Island, which is 11 a little teeny island out in Fisher's Island Sound 12 that happens to fall within my jurisdiction.
13 Here are the requirements: identifies 14 local, Federal, and private sector organizations that 15 are part of the overall responsible organization.
16 This is in response to the possibility of an 17 evacuation for the residents of my community.
18 Requirement met or not met? Not met. These agencies 19 are not clearly identified.
20 Functions and responsibilities for major 21 elements in emergency response specified for each 22 organization and key individuals by title. Not met.
23 The plan does not cite the legal basis for the key 24 elements in emergency response.
25 This goes on and on and on as to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 inadequacies that exist within the emergency 2 management plan for a small island of 275 people that 3 I represent. And the GAO says it's inadequate. Your 4 EIS says you don't have to address it. Where do we 5 meet on this? Who has to address it, then? The 6 Federal Government said it's inadequate, and Dominion 7 and the NRC say it's all right, it's an ongoing 8 process.
9 The process cannot go on until the 275 10 people I represent are well taken care of, and that 11 10-mile EPZ be expanded. And I would like to have 12 these entered into the record. You will get further 13 written comments from my office, and also I just want 14 to let you know that if this process does continue on, 15 without having these requests specifically met, the 16 town of Southold will see you in Federal court.
17 (Applause.)
18 And thank you for the time.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And can we get --
20 can you give those to --
21 MR. HORTON: All right.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And do you want 23 this? There you go.
24 Let's go to Michael first, and then we're 25 going to go to Marie, and then we're going to go to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 Cynthia Willauer.
2 Michael? Michael Domino.
3 MR. DOMINO: Michael Domino. I'm a 4 resident of Southold, Long Island, New York. I'm 5 President of the North Fork Environmental Council.
6 Our membership at this time includes approximately 7 1,500 North Fork residents. We're a diverse group, 8 politically and economically, unified in our desire to 9 advocate for a responsible, sustainable environment in 10 our beloved North Fork.
11 The NFEC has never taken a formal position 12 against nuclear power, and we're not prepared to do so 13 at this time. Having said that, we have not taken a 14 position in support of this particular power plant, 15 nor do we do so today.
16 In our view, site analysis should include, 17 but not be limited to, stringent oversight of the 18 physical plant, the management, detailed plans for 19 transportation of fuel, and the final repository of 20 waste materials, and placement of a plant in a remote 21 location so that in the unlikely event of a 22 catastrophe evacuation is feasible. We do not believe 23 that this application meets those criteria.
24 Radioactive fuels have a half-life, and so 25 do nuclear power plants. Certainly, there are strict NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 maintenance procedures in place. With age, comes the 2 increased probability that something will go amiss.
3 This is not a new facility with an as-yet unproven 4 track record. The NFEC membership is very concerned 5 that our location, some 10 to 11 miles south of this 6 facility, will place in grave danger in the event of 7 an unplanned evacuation.
8 Any severe accident evaluation, or 9 evacuation plan which does not include the North Fork 10 of Long Island, is deficient.
11 Residents, civic, and environmental groups 12 have joined many elected officials from the east end 13 and across Long Island, called upon our government to 14 extend the emergency planning requirement from the 15 current 10-mile radius to a 50-mile radius. By doing 16 so, emergency planning for the North Fork would be 17 required.
18 As stated before, some North Fork 19 residents live as close as 12 miles to the Millstone 20 reactors, yet there are no plans in place to ensure 21 the safety of these residents if there were an 22 incident at the Millstone facility.
23 Because the North Fork is essentially a 24 peninsula surrounded by water on three sides, we have 25 only one direction to evacuate. That's west.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 Residents of Orient -- and I have a map, I'm going to 2 submit it probably later on for -- for the record.
3 Residents of Orient have only one road leading west 4 until Greenport. There are only two roads from 5 Greenport to Mattatuck, and three from Mattatuck to 6 River Head.
7 In the event of an emergency, evacuation 8 of the 22,000 year-round residents and 30,000 summer 9 residents would be virtually impossible, not to 10 mention the hundreds of thousands of Long Island 11 residents who live to the west and who would also be 12 evacuated. Because evacuation of Long Island is 13 impossible, the Shoreham nuclear power plant was shut 14 down. Many of us live closer to Millstone than to 15 Shoreham.
16 We are concerned also about the regulation 17 and potential deregulation of what are termed "nuclear 18 waste" and about the impact on Long Island Sound and 19 the nation as a whole.
20 The hearing was poorly noticed. Although 21 the hearing may have met the legal requirements for 22 notification, very few stakeholders in the North Fork 23 were aware of today's hearing, or, for that matter, 24 the entire scoping process -- we certainly were not 25 given ample time to fully read, consider, and prepare NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 1 thoughtful comment on the generic environmental impact 2 statement for license renewal of nuclear power plants 3 or the 449-page draft supplemental environmental 4 impact statement, which examines the renewal of the 5 Millstone licenses specifically.
6 Because the actions of the NRC in this 7 licensing renewal process will affect the residents of 8 the North Fork and Long Island, we request that the 9 NRC hold an additional public hearing on Long Island.
10 (Applause.)
11 In conclusion, the NFEC wishes to go on 12 record as being in opposition to the license renewal 13 of Millstone Power Station's Units 2 and 3, and more 14 detailed written comments will follow.
15 Thank you very much for the opportunity to 16 speak.
17 (Applause.)
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you. Thank 19 you, Mr. Domino.
20 We're going to go next to Marie Domenici.
21 Did I -- am I saying that wrong?
22 MS. DOMENICI: (Inaudible comment from an 23 unmiked location.)
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
25 MS. DOMENICI: Good afternoon, and thank NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 you so much for having me come here and share my 2 thoughts about the licensing of Millstone. I just 3 want to say off the top that I think it's really 4 important that, as a community 10 miles across the 5 pond, we are underrepresented here today because the 6 turnaround time of notification was too short a time 7 for anyone to really rally the troops. And, frankly, 8 I find that a little bit -- a little disingenuous on 9 behalf of the NRC, not to make it a point to speak to 10 your neighbors.
11 On that note, I would like to read my 12 statement. I don't profess to have any specialized 13 credentials as it relates to this subject matter. I 14 come here today as a citizen who has concerns about 15 what I hear and read as it relates to the Millstone 16 power plant and its impact on our environment.
17 Therefore, the following are my thoughts, 18 concerns, and reasons for opposing this licensing.
19 Lack of notification to Long Island 20 residents. Currently, there is no plan -- plans in 21 place to notify Long Island in the event of a nuclear 22 accident. Legislation should mandate a 50-mile radius 23 notification system.
24 Lack of an evacuation plan. And I'm not 25 saying anything here that you haven't heard already, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234-4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1 but you have to understand the importance of this. So 2 there is no evacuation plan that will ever safely 3 evacuate Long Island in the event of a nuclear 4 accident.
5 Environmental exposure to radiation, EMF, 6 and cancer-causing agents. And we can dispute that 7 from now 'til the cows come home. We do know that 8 radiation is a cancer-causing agent, and we can sit 9 here and deny or we can sit here and face the problem 10 and try to make some kind of an amenable situation for 11 all.
12 If you are trying -- you know, your 13 presentation here was all very nice and all that, but 14 you know what? As people who are against a nuclear 15 power plant, you needed to hear what we had to say.
16 We didn't have to sit here and sit through all of the 17 processes that you go through as an organization.
18 Perhaps in the future when you do have meetings like 19 this, listen to what we have to say first. And if 20 anyone is interested in what you have to say 21 afterward, let your presentation be at the end of your 22 meetings.
23 The nuclear power plants are targets for 24 terrorism, and we haven't even touched on that. Okay?
25 The terrorists certainly know where all of our weak NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 spots are. And a nuclear power plant just screams.
2 You just may as well leave the keys in the car with 3 the lights on and just let it happen, because that is 4 what -- you can talk about all of the reinforcing, and 5 you can talk about all that good stuff, but the 6 reality is it doesn't work. And for anyone to try to 7 make us think it will is also very disingenuous.
8 In reading the abstract on your website, 9 I have grave concerns relating to the environmental 10 issues identified by the staff. And let me just say 11 it only takes one catastrophic event, whether by 12 nuclear accident or terrorist attack, to devastate 13 this region. So to have 92 environmental issues, 14 whether small or great, are 92 too many.
15 Not only do we have to be concerned about 16 a nuclear accident or attack, but we also have no 17 place to put the spent fuel, and this poses an 18 entirely whole set of other problems. Long Island has 19 been targeted by the EPA to use the Long Island Sound 20 as a dump site for Connecticut's dredge waste. The 21 Sound is an estuary, and the EPA is the guardian of 22 the estuary, and I find it unthinkable that the EPA 23 feels that there will be very little impact in dumping 24 over 200 million cubic yards of waste from 25 Connecticut.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
ill 1 And although it may not be radiation 2 waste, it was, because they cleaned up the submarine 3 base in Grotton, or wherever. So what makes anyone 4 think it's okay to dump in the Sound, or any other 5 waterway?
6 The mere fact that Millstone does not have 7 to notify Long Island -- its Long Island neighbors in 8 the event of an accident prompts me to ask, who is 9 minding the store? It is not -- is it not the role of 10 the NRC to ensure the health and well-being of all 11 people, or does the NRC have concern for only a chosen 12 few? Environmental decisions such as this cannot 13 always be made with political agendas, shareholders, 14 or big business in mind. It can't always be about 15 profit.
16 As a resident of Long Island, I resent the 17 fact -- I resent the lack of concern by the NRC toward 18 its Long Island neighbors. And as a citizen of this 19 planet, I have grave concerns the NRC's vision does 20 not have the very best interest for all people. Can 21 anyone here from the NRC tell me, where do I take my 22 family after a nuclear accident? What place would be 23 safe? Do you have a place that you're going to go to 24 in the event of an accident? Because we all need to 25 be there. Okay? It's that simple, guys.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 .(202). 234-4433
112 1 To quote from your website, "The NRC's 2 primary mission is to protect the public health and 3 safety and the environment from the effects of 4 radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and waste 5 facilities." Please reread your mission statement 6 from time to time, and remember why you are in 7 business in the first place, and who you are supposed 8 to be protecting.
9 Knowing the right thing to do in this case 10 should not mean having to legislate or mandate laws.
11 Doing the right thing should not hinge on risk 12 assessments as the risks are too high. I think we all 13 know what the right thing to do is in this case. I go 14 on record as opposing the issuance of this license.
15 Thank you.
16 (Applause.)
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thanks, Marie.
18 We're going to go to Cynthia Willauer, 19 Tony Sheridan, and then Gail Merrill. Cynthia?
20 Cynthia, I believe, has some individual remarks, and 21 something from another organization. Is that correct?
22 MS. WILLAUER: Is this on? Or is this on?
23 Or which is on?
24 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Yes, they're both 25 on.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 MS. WILLAUER: I'm skipping the individual 2 ones and just speaking for two organizations.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you 4 very much.
5 MS. WILLAUER: I live in Lyme, 6 Connecticut, which I think makes me within the 10-mile 7 radius that people have been talking about. And I'm 8 representing two groups -- PACE, People's Action for 9 Clean Energy, and Energy Option Study Group of Lyme.
10 And I will begin with reading the PACE report. I 11 serve as a radiation monitor for this group.
12 PACE -- People's Action for Clean Energy 13 -- a Connecticut State organization since 1974, 14 representing 2,400 constituent households, strongly 15 and adamantly opposes the relicensing of Millstone.
16 Our Board of Directors, members, and supporters are 17 extremely concerned about terrorism. We've heard this 18 before.
19 The spent fuel pools at nuclear plants are 20 not adequately protected. In fact, we view nuclear 21 power plants as weapons of mass destruction only 22 waiting for-terrorists to detonate them.
23 To further understand the reality of this 24 scenario, PACE invites the NRC representatives here to 25 join us on February 8th in West Hartford at St.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 Joseph's College to view the FX cable channel feature 2 film entitled Meltdown. This realistic portrayal of 3 the infiltration of terrorists into a nuclear plant is 4 chilling and relevant.
5 In addition, we are deeply concerned about 6 the continuous release of radioactive isotopes that 7 are emitted from these plants. These emissions have 8 fallen on Connecticut's soil and water and have been 9 emitted into the air for years.
10 The effects of radiation are cumulative.
11 Since few studies have been done on the cancer rates 12 around the plants, we only need to use our reasoning 13 powers to understand that the radiation is harmful and 14 that the degree of harm varies from individual to 15 individual.
16 We do know that children and fetuses are 17 extremely vulnerable to these long-lived and terrible 18 poisons. We are also worried about a nuclear 19 accident. Old machines are fallible, as are the human 20 beings who run them. We only need to look at the 21 Davis-Besse in Ohio to understand the potential of 22 what may occur without even the awareness of nuclear 23 plant operators.
24 In addition, we find the centralization 25 that this kind of energy represents to be unwise. Our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 centralized grid is brittle, vulnerable to blackouts 2 and terrorism. Decentralized energy substations, 3 using renewable energy, would help to make us safer.
4 5 Lastly, continuous operation of nuclear 6 power plants creates more waste. Even if we send 7 waste to Yucca Mountain, a seismic area, more waste 8 will be created in Connecticut that will remain to 9 hurt us or to tempt terrorists.
10 We urge you not to relicense Millstone.
11 Relicensing is a recipe for disaster.
12 And this is submitted by Judi Friedman, 13 who is the Chair of PACE.
14 So now for the Energy Option Study Report.
15 This is a group that was founded in February 1997 when 16 news of Millstone's dysfunction was widely reported in 17 the press. I was a co-founder of the group, because 18 I was aware that I had been blind to the danger that 19 Millstone presented. I was raising my children and 20 training for work, and I was -- I was really blind to 21 the dangers of nuclear power.
22 I had -- a friend remembers my saying I 23 had my head in the sand. And we got together as a 24 group, and we researched the hazards of nuclear 25 generation of energy and the radiation emission of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116 1 plants, and we learned of the dangers of waste.
2 But more important, our focus was 3 educating ourselves about alternatives to ongoing 4 reliance on nuclear power and on dwindling fossil 5 fuels. We learned about alternative sources of energy 6 and the strides that are being made and that can be 7 made in efficient use of energy.
8 Our reading told us -- tells us -- and 9 this I know is not -- not universally believed, but we 10 believed it, and we studied this in depth. In 11 combination with energy efficiency, methods of 12 generating energy-efficiently, and shifting to 13 renewable sources, this can be done. It's not a myth.
14 And other countries are already doing it.
15 So to relicense nuclear plants for another 16 20 years is to pull the rug out of initiatives to 17 develop cost-effective renewable generation of energy, 18 combined with change of policy for wise use. To pull 19 the rug out -- this is to move the energy policy of 20 the nation in the wrong direction. So we urge you:
21 don't do this.
22 There are many points that we might make 23 to convince you of our position, many of which have 24 been made earlier. But I am limiting myself to 25 sharing one, and it's -- this also has already been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 shared. We don't know what to do with nuclear waste.
2 I think it's unethical to generate hazardous waste in 3 our community and transport it out for disposal.
4 It's unethical whether the community that 5 is receiving the waste wants it or not, because the 6 community that wants it is bound to be poor. They're 7 in it for the money. They need the money. But what 8 they get is contaminated groundwater and contaminated 9 -- all that that means, all that the contamination of 10 their community means.
11 And as for Nevada -- the State of Nevada 12 having to receive it, put our foot in that shoe. We 13 wouldn't accept the nuclear waste of another State or, 14 worse, of the nation.
15 Now, a time is opening up for us to change 16 our ways. If we calculate the full cost of the ways 17 we generate energy -- and I didn't hear the whole of 18 the presentation, but I think the hidden costs were 19 not mentioned, the health costs for instance, we learn 20 that we can't afford to -- not to change our ways.
21 Nuclear energy is expensive when the 22 hidden costs are factored in. Expanding the use of 23 renewable energy, combined with the creative design of 24 wise years, is really the only way to go in the long 25 run. But it takes study to know that this is so.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 So let's take our heads out of the sand 2 collectively and see the danger of relicensing, and 3 the opportunity in not relicensing. It's exciting, 4 it's interesting, and it's being done elsewhere.
5 Let's bring the opportunity home.
6 Thank you.
7 (Applause.)
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you. Thank 9 you very much. I'll give one to the transcriber, and 10 we'll keep one. Thank you.
11 We're going to go to Tony Sheridan, and 12 then we're going to go to Gail Merrill.
13 MR. SHERIDAN: Cynthia Willauer is a tough 14 opponent to follow. Much of what she said I can have 15 a good discussion with her over, and do indeed from 16 time to time, and don't necessarily disagree with all 17 she said -- of what she said.
18 But the fact is we are here. We do need 19 electricity. Millstone produces close to the 20 equivalent of 50 percent -- think about that -- 50 21 percent of the electricity Connecticut uses on a daily 22 basis.
23 You know, I'd like to think of 24 MS. BURTON: (Inaudible comment from an 25 unmiked location.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119 1 MR. SHERIDAN: No, I do not work for 2 Dominion.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Great. Go 4 ahead, Tony.
5 MR. SHERIDAN: And thank you for reminding 6 me. I'm President of the Chamber of Commerce of 7 Eastern Connecticut, and I represent approximately 8 1,250 employers who employ a little over 50,000 people 9 in eastern Connecticut.
10 MS. BURTON: (Inaudible comment from an 11 unmiked location.)
12 MR. SHERIDAN: I didn't interrupt you, so 13 I--
14 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Nancy, if someone 15 wants to come up and make --
16 MR. SHERIDAN: -- would appreciate it if 17 you didn't interrupt me.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: -- a comment, they 19 can make a comment. So let's let Tony continue, and 20 then we'll get to the rest of everybody, including 21 you.
22 MR. SHERIDAN: I happen to be involved 23 with this issue for a long time. I was First -- or 24 Selectman in this town for 10 years, and First 25 Selectman for 8 years. And there were good times and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 1 bad times.
2 I was Selectman when Millstone had a lot 3 of difficulty and when, quite frankly, the process was 4 not like the process that I see here today. The 5 process was quite unfair, quite awkward, and certainly 6 wasn't as fair or as balanced as it seems to be today.
7 So I appreciate the learning that both the NRC has 8 done, and certainly it seems to be a lot more fair 9 than the days of -- my Selectman days where we'd sit 10 here night after night listening to NRC speak the 11 speak and really not address the issue.
12 Today there is a valid attempt -- and I 13 have seen that now for several meetings -- a valid 14 attempt to take into consideration public comments.
15 What I did when I was First Selectman -- and this is 16 a little bit of criticism -- I allowed the people of 17 eastern Connecticut to come and speak first. They're 18 the people who live here, work here, who pay the price 19 one way or the other of having nuclear power plants in 20 their community.
21 With all due respect to our neighbors in 22 Long Island, we would ask them to wait their turn.
23 But that's another point.
24 I would like to speak to the importance of 25 having these plants renewed, but I'd also like to pick NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121 1 up on a comment that Cynthia Willauer made. This 2 can't be the end of our energy invention, if you want.
3 We have got to continue to look at better and safer 4 ways to produce electricity, and we will.
5 This country -- this is what makes this 6 country great. We're always willing to push the 7 envelope and learn more. What we know today about 8 electricity and about nuclear power we didn't know 10 9 years ago, and hopefully there will be other forms of 10 energy 10 years from now that we may not need to have 11 this debate. But it's critically important in the 12 meantime to have a steady, reliable supply of 13 electricity or we'll quickly become a Third World 14 State.
15 And I'm serious about that. We need 16 energy. Energy is the mother's milk of economic 17 development. People need jobs. What are you going to 18 do? If you close down Millstone, you're going to 19 import that amount of electricity? Fossil fuel 20 generated electricity? Let's talk about the 21 environment.
22 -I remember a few years ago, not 20 years 23 ago, when I could go out to my car and write my 24 initials on the hood of the car because of the coal 25 and the fuels that were burning up here in Montville.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 And I lived three miles away from the plant. So I 2 think what we have is a bit improvement. Hopefully, 3 there will be more improvements going forward.
4 Now, let me just -- there's been a lot of 5 talk here about cancer today. Those are scare words, 6 and I'm sorry your friends I think from Long Island 7 have left. Have they left?
8 PARTICIPANT: We're still here.
9 MR. SHERIDAN: Oh, thank you. When I 10 First Selectman, there was a concern that the ball 11 fields, which are loaned to the town of Waterford by 12 Millstone, were contaminated. That was the most 13 recent scare that was out in the community.
14 Well, here I am First Selectman. What am 15 I supposed to do? I called in -- and Ed Wilds is here 16 from the Connecticut Department of Radiation. Is that 17 right, Ed? And I called at that time Northeast 18 Utilities, and I said, "We've got to look at this. We 19 can't just accept 'no, they're not' for an answer.",
20 We had every square feet -- foot of those 21 fields measured. We found a big boulder that had 22 radon. We did not find waste from Millstone. You 23 could throw a stone from those fields and hit the 24 tower -- the stack at Millstone. So please don't come 25 to our community and try to use scare tactics. Bring NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 your facts. You're most welcome. We want to hear 2 them.
3 The opposition, the group who have 4 expressed concern about Millstone over the years, have 5 done a great service. They have made all of us more 6 alert, more sensitive. But don't use scare tactics.
7 Bring your facts and get them on the record, because 8 we live here, and we're not fools. We really believe 9 the plants are safe. I believe they're safe, and I 10 can see the tower from my house. And I brought up my 11 family, and about 1,200 people who work at Millstone, 12 who live in the community, they're not fools either.
13 So thank you very much for your time, and 14 for the good job you're doing.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you. Thank 16 you, Tony.
17 We're going to go to Gail Merrill at this 18 point, and then we'll proceed with some additional 19 speakers.
20 MS. MERRILL: I am so thrilled to be 21 speaking after the last gentleman, because I'll 22 straighten you out. Okay? I think you need it.
23 First of all, I don't even know where to 24 start I'm so angry right now. My heart is just 25 pounding, and it's not because I'm uncomfortable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124 1 speaking. I've been sitting there for hours today 2 waiting to be heard, and I think you should have heard 3 from the public, because I don't want to hear the PR 4 from the NRC or from Dominion. I don't want to waste 5 my time. I had a two-hour drive here to get here.
6 And my mother is dead of breast cancer.
7 She is 12 miles down from Millstone Nuclear Reactor on 8 Long Island. Then, I got the tumor 11 months after 9 she died. My tumor is not genetic. Now, I'm 77 miles 10 downwind in New Caanan, Connecticut. I'm also 11 impacted by Indian Point nuclear reactor. But 12 radiation.org did their research, and they proved 13 statistically -- and published it in a book -- years 14 ago that women who live within 100 miles of a nuclear 15 reactor have the greatest risk of dying of breast 16 cancer.
17 Now, anyone who doubts this information, 18 you can see it visually. And this is the NRC's own 19 map. So how do they refute their own map? And how do 20 they refute the government that they work for? Here 21 you go, folks. Here is the breast cancer mortality 22 for women, 50 to 74 years old dying of breast cancer.
23 It's not about any one town. It's all of us. It's 24 the whole northeast. And the gentleman that just 25 spoke doesn't have boobs. He doesn't store toxins in
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 1 his breasts. Okay?
2 I'm tired of seeing women die, and I don't 3 want to be one of those women that dies. There is 14-4 year old girls with breast cancer in Connecticut, more 5 than one, and more than one 15-year old. And I'm not 6 up here to scare you. I'm up here to tell you: this 7 is reality. I've buried five women in their forties 8 in all different towns in my area. In their forties.
9 I've watched 30-year old women getting 10 double mastectomies and getting the cancer right back 11 again. I don't think he'd like to go through that.
12 And all of the hours it took to prepare these reports.
13 How many hours do you think we spent in the chemo 14 room?
15 So I don't care about pretty 16 presentations. And I don't care about lip service.
17 I don't want to die, and that's the reason why I'm 18 here.
19 The Tumor Registry says that you all have 20 the highest cancer rate in -- is in New London County.
21 And within that, the top -- the six towns around it, 22 around Millstone, have the highest of 12 different 23 cancers. That's the Tumor Registry, folks. They 24 don't lie.
25 My tumor is in that registry, and too many NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234.4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 .(202).234-4433
126 1 others are in that registry, too. Okay?
2 Now, just so you don't miss it, this is 3 the young women dying of breast cancer. Okay? It's 4 not just about one town. And what makes me really mad 5 from my perspective, who doesn't want to die, is how 6 dare a town ignore the facts, lie to the public, and 7 put their profits before public safety. How dare you.
8 9 You might want your schools. That's nice.
10 But I understand one of your high school students had 11 uterine cancer last year. There's a kid in Mystic --
12 a two-year old dead of bone cancer. Now come on, 13 folks. You've got kids. You've got grandchildren.
14 This is not okay. Have you noticed that younger and 15 younger people are getting cancers?
16 Look at the cemetery. A lot of older 17 people lived to a lot later age in life. Look at the 18 new graves. They're dying younger.
19 This is the NRC map. Okay? I'll make it 20 easy for you. There is a correlation. These are 21 government maps that show that 20- to 49-year olds are 22 dying in the northeast, and the 40- to 74-year olds 23 that die in the northeast, and the Tumor Registry 24 confirms it.
25 Now, for the people that feel like they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1 got here late in the game, didn't know about this 2 meeting ahead of time, the Attorney General feels that 3 way, too. I had a little conversation with him last 4 night. He doesn't like -- don't want to put words in 5 his mouth. I'll stop right there. He's going to be 6 involved in this process, because they weren't aware 7 of this meeting either.
8 Now, for all you who doubt what I'm saying 9 to you, here's a whole tape full of physicists 10 discussing the corporate link, the cover-ups. I'm in 11 here, the only person who isn't a scientist here.
12 Okay? This won Best Documentary in an L.A. Film 13 Festival. It's been shown in New York City up the 14 wazoo, sold out crowds every time. GaryKnoll.com.
15 Get it. Show it.
16 Now, I'm going to read to you what I have.
17 I'm so angry. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission --
18 this is my environmental impact statement regarding 19 the question of the license renewal of Millstone 20 Nuclear Power plants. My statement is in support of 21 the Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone.
22 I've been impacted by breast cancer at age 23 48 -- 20 years earlier than my mother got it --because 24 I grew up with the nuclear chemical industries. She 25 didn't, and my grandmother didn't, and she lived to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128 1 86, never had breast cancer. Okay?
2 Yale said my tumor was less than 6 percent 3 likely that it was genetic before they ever tested me.
4 Okay? So don't think if it doesn't run in your family 5 it's not your problem. Okay?
6 I've told you she lived 12 miles downwind 7 from Millstone on Long Island, New York. She's also 8 downwind of Indian Point Nuclear Reactor and the 9 Northern Nuclear Reactor in New Jersey.
10 That's why they have a nine-year old child 11 down there in Long Island with breast cancer, and the 12 government did a $6 million study to find the cause of 13 breast cancer. They couldn't find it because they 14 just happened to leave out the nuclear emissions as 15 part of the study. That was exposed in the New York 16 Times article by Dr. Janet Sherman, who works for 17 Radiation.org. It was published.
18 I've been appalled by the horrific number 19 of young women with breast cancer in Connecticut. In 20 daily conversations from friends, family, hospice 21 workers who take care of dying people, doctors, 22 nurses, it's prolific, and the women are scared. As 23 my neighbor said to me, who is next? She knows of 24 four people in New Caanan where I live with all 25 different kinds of cancers.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
.(202). 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129 1 We don't have any toxic sites in New 2 Canaan, folks. We have a four-year old with a brain 3 tumor. Now we're downwind about 25 miles of Indian 4 point, but we're also downwind of Millstone. It's too 5 many different towns. It's too many young people.
6 It's getting worse. Okay?
7 According to our government's National 8 Cancer Institute' s Atlas of Cancer Mortality -- that' s 9 the map that you just me -- or, sorry, that I just 10 showed you. Okay? The government's own map -- I'm 11 not making it up, folks. It's coming from too many 12 sources. It's not scare tactics. It's reality. And 13 I don't want this town to profit off of the nuclear 14 reactor tax dollars at the expense of my health.
15 That's where my anger comes from.
16 'I don't want somebody to put their profits 17 before my safety. And it's not just about me, Gail 18 Merrill. It's all of us. Okay?
19 Scientists at radiation.org have published 20, a book "The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living 21 Near Nuclear Reactors." They proved it statistically.
22 They are also documented in the nationwide tooth fairy 23 project, which is documenting Strontium-90 in your 24 baby teeth. Okay? It acts like calcium, radioactive 25 cancer-causing chemical only from the nuclear reactors NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 1 now, folks, because the nuclear bomb testing stopped 2 quite a while ago.
3 The Strontium-90 acts like calcium, goes 4 into your bones and teeth, where it nails your immune 5 system, your thyroid function, so you're vulnerable to 6 cancer, bacteria, and viruses.
7 Now, just to let you know -- a little 8 alert here -- the first lawsuit has already happened.
9 It's directed against the St. Lucie Nuclear Reactor in 10 Port St. Lucie, Florida, because at least five 11 children, last I heard, were suing because they could 12 prove the Strontium-90 in their baby teeth. They did 13 a big tooth fairy project in Florida. The kids with 14 cancer had twice the Strontium-90 levels in their baby 15 teeth as the kids who didn't have cancer.
16 And according to radiation public health, 17 35 baby teeth so far in Connecticut, the kids living 18 closest to the nuclear reactors around Indian Point 19 and Millstone Nuclear Reactor have the highest 20 Strontium-90 levels. Okay?
21 So a lawsuit could very easily be in the 22 works here. Get together, community. Get those baby 23 teeth submitted. You can document illegal emissions, 24 and our Attorney General said that's what he's going 25 to do. If he can prove illegal emissions, he'll sue.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 1 I said, "We've got it." Okay?
2 Let's see. I'm almost finished here.
3 Okay. You know that New London County has 4 the highest cancer rate. We've been through that.
5 Okay. Now, Dr. Ernest Sternglass, 6 Professor Emeritus of Radiological Physics at the 7 University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 8 documented in a seven-page report dated August 8, 9 2004, his opposition to the renewal of Millstone 2 and 10 3 licenses. A 40-year history of documenting the 11 effects of low-level environmental radiation on human 12 health and development produced by nuclear releases.
13 He has testified as an expert. His report 14 is submitted in to the NRC. That man, at 80 years 15 old, sharp as a tack, travels internationally still, 16 helped to stop the above-ground nuclear bomb testing 17 by documenting Strontium-90 in baby teeth as the 18 nuclear bomb blast blew across the country and they 19 found it in St. Louis baby teeth.
20 He says the reason why Nevada on this map 21 is in red is because they did underground nuclear bomb 22 testing until '93. There is lots of evidence, folks, 23 and I will fax it to whoever wants it. I will walk 24 you through it. You can find your own mortality maps.
25 Too many of us have cancers in too many NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
A_ _,_
(202) _. ..__
234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 1 different towns. Too many of us are downwind of the 2 cancer-causing emissions. You need to close Indian --
3 sorry. I'll say the same thing for Indian Point.
4 What the hell?
5 It's the same game, folks. We're dying.
6 Protect us. Come on. Somebody in here has to have 7 enough heart to listen to what I'm saying to you. Or 8 God help you, it'll be your mother or your daughter, 9 somebody in your life will be impacted. And, men, 10 you're damn lucky, because a lot of your cancers --
11 not all -- a lot of your cancers don't happen -- and 12 your prostate might happen around 48. This is girls 13 getting it. Childhood leukemias.
14 I'm not the expert here on the science, 15 but I know enough to read the reports. And that's why 16 Dr. Sternglass' material and Joe Mangano' s material is 17 going to be submitted to the NRC. And the Attorney 18 General has received the books, because I hand-19 delivered it to him. And Senator Clinton, and Senator 20 Kerry, they all know it.
21 We have a right to be safe. We don't want 22 to die. So please, somebody, get off your chair and 23 help us.
24 (Applause.)
25 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 1 Do you want to put that on the transcript?
2 MS. MERRILL: Yes, I do.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Good.
4 Next three --
5 MS. MERRILL: If anybody would like a copy 6 of my material, I'll be happy to give it to you. Do 7 you want to see the map?
8 FACILITATOR CAMERON: The next three 9 speakers -- we're going to go to John Markowicz, Nancy 10 Burton, and then Cynthia Besate.
11 John Markowicz? Hi, John.
12 MR. MARKOWICZ: Yes. For the record, I'm 13 John Markowicz. I'm the Executive Director of the 14 Southeast Connecticut Enterprise Region. We represent 15 the 22 municipalities in southeastern Connecticut.
16 PARTICIPANT: We can't hear you.
17 MR. MARKOWICZ: My name is John Markowicz.
18 19 PARTICIPANT: Your mike is not working.
20 MR. MARKOWICZ: Yes. My name is John 21 Markowicz. I'm the Executive Director of the 22 Southeast Connecticut Enterprise Region. My 23 corporation represents the 22 municipalities in 24 southeastern Connecticut and associated businesses.
25 I want to thank the Nuclear Regulatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 1 Commission for coming and taking the time to listen to 2 us this evening -- this afternoon. It's almost 3 evening. And I want to also thank you for your 4 patience.
5 I have reviewed the GEIS, Supplement 22.
6 I did not read all the appendices. I found some 7 interesting facts about anchovies and winter flounder 8 and a few things I didn't know much about. I'd like 9 to note that in my opinion the NRC has been very 10 thorough and very detailed and very complete in the 11 material that has been presented to them to date, and 12 the information and the conclusions that are in this 13 report.
14 I would particularly like to note that my 15 comments at an earlier meeting regarding the 16 socioeconomic impact of Millstone and the relicensing 17 of Millstone have been accurately represented. And I 18 would also note that, in my opinion, the comments of 19 other participants at those earlier meetings have been 20 accurately represented, and, in the appendix that I 21 did read, have been addressed.
22 Upon review of this report, I submit the 23 following comments for the record. I support the 24 staff conclusions and recommendations that are 25 contained in Section 9.3. I also reiterate our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
135 1 support for the relicensing of Millstone 2 and 2 Millstone 3, as is documented on page A-14 of this 3 report.
4 Finally, I would ask that the comments 5 that were made at the beginning of the meeting 6 regarding the exemption of the emergency preparedness 7 and the security issues associated with the plant that 8 are not included in this be addressed as to the reason 9 why, in the abstract, many of the members of my 10 organization, and another organization that will speak 11 this evening, continue to have concerns.
12 And the comments that were made at the 13 beginning of the meeting as to why emergency 14 preparedness and security issues are not in here 15 should be included, so that that provides some 16 information to address that issue.
17 Thank you very much.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, John.
19 Nancy, are you ready?
20 MS. BURTON: Yes.
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We're going to go to 22 Nancy Burton, and then we're going to go to Cynthia 23 Besade. And we have a few more speakers after that.
24 Nancy?
25 MS. BURTON: Thank you very much. That NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136 1 will be the end of the pleasantries.
2 I'm Nancy Burton, and I'm here today 3 speaking on behalf of the Connecticut Coalition 4 Against Millstone. I'd like to -- can everybody hear 5 me? No? No? Thank you.
6 Razom Nas Bagato. Nas Ne Podolaty!
7 That's a slogan I picked up a couple of weeks ago when 8 I was in the Ukraine serving as an international 9 election observer during the recent contested 10 elections. And that slogan, I learned, translates 11 to, "We are many. We will not be pushed aside."
12 And that slogan, of course, comes to mind 13 as I appear here today to speak to you concerning the 14 nuclear power plant. But before I do that, I wanted 15 to display something very pretty that I picked up in 16 the Ukraine.
17 (Laughter.)
18 I have never done a fashion show before, 19 but this is a beautiful --
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Do you think that we 21 should --
22 MS. BURTON: -- blouse, handmade by women 23 in one of the regions of the western part of the 24 country. And I mention it because the work of the 25 international election observers was made a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 easier by the fact of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 2 in 1986, because it eliminated 73 villages from the 3 political life of the country.
4 In other words, there were 73 fewer towns 5 for people to vote in, because there were no more 6 towns, no more people, and there never will be again 7 for very many hundreds of years. And so, therefore, 8 there are no cultures or customs or people or children 9 or lives or memories there in that 8 percent area of 10 the Ukraine.
11 We do not want Chernobyl to happen here.
12 We do not want a situation where, as in Belarus, the 13 country to the north that suffered even worse than 14 Ukraine, where close to 50 percent of the gross 15 national product today in the year 2005 is devoted to 16 Chernobyl mediation mitigation, helping people who are 17 diseased and unable to function in life.
18 I felt so bad for the hundreds of 19 thousands of protesters who day after day after day in 20 the rain and cold and snow on Independence Square in 21 Kiev were warmed by fires made of wood that was 22 brought in daily. What made me worry was when I read 23 that 40 percent of the forests in the country are 24 contaminated with radiation, and the radiation is 25 released when the wood is burned.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
138 1 We do not want that to happen here, and 2 that is why we want the NRC to order the closure of 3 the Millstone Nuclear Power Station. I've had 4 occasion to read this entire draft environmental 5 impact statement, and I'm going to throw it on the 6 floor. Maybe I should put it in the fire -- I don't 7 know -- because it is a pack of lies.
8 We know who paid for it. The nuclear 9 industry paid for it. And I am saying that for 35 10 years in this community we have listened to lies, 11 deception, chicanery, cheating, harming, and worse.
12 And as the people on the streets of Kiev 13 have said, "They are many, and they will not be pushed 14 aside." The same will hold for us. We have had 15 enough.
16 Our government is not working for us. It 17 is not helping us. Our government in this State is so 18 deeply compromised at every level that we have an 19 operating nuclear power plant that is causing people 20 to get sick and die in our community. Go to Seabreeze 21 Drive in Waterford and knock on every other door, and 22 you will find a cancer case where people have died.
23 There are very many people who will not be 24 in attendance at this meeting, because their heads are 25 in their pillows and they are weeping because they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
.(202). 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
139 1 have lost family members. We have had enough of this, 2 and enough of the lies, and we will be heard this 3 time. We have been nice so far, and times have 4 changed.
5 There is a summary of draft report 6 findings in the back of this room. I wrote down five.
7 Impact to human health -- impacts to human health are 8 of small significance. Impact to air quality are of 9 small significance. Impact of radioactive and non-10 radioactive waste management are of small 11 significance. Impact of postulated accidents are of 12 small significance.
13 Current measures to mitigate the 14 environmental impacts of plant operations are 15 adequate, and no additional mitigation measures are 16 warranted. These are lies. These are willful, 17 deceptive lies.
18 In the Ukraine, there were six people who 19 were operating the Chernobyl nuclear power plant when 20 the disaster occurred. They meant no harm to anyone.
21 They were going through what they thought was well 22 within the realm of what they should be doing to 23 perform certain operations, and things didn't go well.
24 The roof blew off, fires -- horrible fires started, 25 and six people were prosecuted -- those were the
-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 1 operators of that plant -- and spent time in prison.
2 Well, in our society, we have doctrines 3 that concern criminal conduct, and it has to do with 4 knowledge and intent, and deliberate conduct. We have 5 presented earlier in these proceedings, in court 6 proceedings, in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7 proceedings in this case, in public meetings, we have 8 documented that this facility is a killer of people.
9 It's a killer of fish.
10 It's the worst predator against the 11 environment in this part of the country, and the NRC 12 has not listened. Dominion has not listened. Or if 13 they have listened -- because how could they not hear 14 -- they are acting deliberately to kill. And under 15 our criminal code, that is an offense. And it's an 16 offense that subjects an offender to time in prison.
17 I mention that because things are changing 18 in the world and in this community, and we will not 19 accept this treatment further.
20 I have very many particular comments to 21 address. I see that it's 4:32, so I am just going to 22 focus on a couple. One is the -- of course, I have to 23 start with the health. There's been a complete 24 disregard of all of the information that has been 25 submitted about health effects.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141 1 When the NRC can say, "Impact to human 2 health -- impacts to human health are of small 3 significance," do they mean small people, just to 4 children, so it doesn't matter? Or what do they mean 5 by that? They don't mean diddly, because they're just 6 a rubber stamp for a company that paid for them to do 7 this disgraceful job.
8 When they say that it's of moderate 9 significance that the fish population -- and the fish 10 are important because we eat fish. If we don't have 11 anything to eat, we die. There is a food chain, and 12 when the fish die because they are eating worms that 13 are radioactive from Jordan Cove -- and I didn't see 14 the Cobalt-60 mentioned -- of Jordan Cove in this 15 report -- then the fish get sick, and the birds that 16 eat the fish get sick, and the people who eat the fish 17 and other things get sick. We all get sick, and it's 18 unnecessary.
19 I mentioned the problems that we have in 20 government that are not -- that are standing in the 21 way of correcting what we have here with the Millstone 22 menace, and it extends to each of the branches. It 23 extends to legislative committees where Melodie Peters 24 -- she is seated here -- maintained a position as 25 Chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee while NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 1 she went officially on the payroll of Dominion.
2 The Ethics Committee of this State ruled 3 that that was permissible, and so she carried on in 4 that way. There was a Judge of the Superior Court, 5 Judge Langaumback, who actually met ex parte with 6 lawyers for Dominion and Northeast Utilities and then 7 canceled a hearing that had been scheduled to consider 8 whether there should be a transfer of expired and 9 illegal permits to Dominion.
10 Those are the same expired and illegal 11 permits that the NRC today is saying are perfectly 12 valid and permit Millstone to kill fish, discharge 13 waste -- radioactive waste and caustic chemicals in 14 the Sound. A Judge of the Superior Court actually did 15 that.
16 We know that Dr. Wilds of the DEP went on 17 a junket trip at the expense of Dominion to a nuclear 18 waste site, and yet did not report that to the Siting 19 Council recently when he was --
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Nancy? Nancy?
21 MS. BURTON: Pardon me?
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: I'm not trying to 23 say anything about what you're saying, but can we not 24 make comments about other people in the audience like 25 that, if you could. Okay?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
143 1 MS. BURTON: Dr. Wilds is here.
2 FACILITATOR CAMERON: That's right.
3 MS. BURTON: He is able to come forward 4 and speak to this. I'm speaking the truth. These are 5 public records. His name appears in this document as 6 somebody who has spoken with the NRC and told them 7 that the Department of Environmental Protection of 8 this State favors this application and does not find 9 that there is a problem with this plant causing cancer 10 and other adverse health effects in the community.
11 That is a lie.
12 And that is his name, and he is here, and 13 he is now calling someone on his cell phone. And we 14 are holding him accountable today and tomorrow and 15 forever on forward because we have had enough of the 16 lying.
17 (Applause.)
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And other comments 19 on the draft environmental impact statement?
20 MS. BURTON: I have many comments, and I 21 will be presenting more in writing. But one in 22 particular I'll point out, and then I will yield the 23 floor to someone else. And that appears at page F-1 24 in a footnote, which is that the generic environmental 25 impact statement -- and that's the document that in --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
144 1 what is it -- 92 percent of the time the NRC said, 2 "Because of what's in that document, we don't have to 3 look at what is happening at Millstone, or has 4 happened for 35 years or will ever happen, because of 5 that document."
6 But if you go to the footnote, you will 7 see that that document was issued in 1996, with an 8 addendum that came out a couple of years later. Well, 9 in 1996, that was before 9/11. That was before many 10 of the proceedings at which the truth of fraud and 11 collusion and corruption came out in proceedings in 12 the courts in this State.
13 That was before there were disclosures by 14 whistleblowers such as Jim Plumb about historic, 15 willful, environmental violations at Millstone that 16 led Northeast Utilities to plead guilty to 17 environmental felonies in 1998.
18 This was before many of the people on the 19 -- on a list that you are about to hear about came 20 down with horrible cases of cancer and died. This was 21 before Dr. Sternglass and Joseph Mangano and Dr.
22 Sherman and many, many, many, many others have put 23 their intelligence and their conscientious effort into 24 understanding what has happened here, and found 25 themselves drawn to the conclusion that this Millstone NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
145 1 Nuclear Power plant is a menace.
2 We should not be bound by a document 3 issued in 1996 -- that's the Dark Ages -- when prior 4 to so much which has happened. I would join with the 5 gentleman from Southold in asking the NRC to disband 6 these proceedings. They are flawed procedurally. If 7 the population of Suffolk County -- and there are 8 hundreds of thousands, and they were treated so rudely 9 before, if not of course illegally by the Atomic 10 Safety and Licensing Board, which refused to consider 11 their application to intervene after the legislature 12 voted unanimously to hire legal counsel to intervene.
13 They're right. They have a right to be 14 here and to be heard and to participate. Just because 15 Dominion sent checks without an explanation to 16 legislators in Suffolk County isn't cause for this NRC 17 not to notify the people of that community and give 18 them an opportunity to be heard.
19 Thank you.
20 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right. Thank 21 you.
22 Cynthia, are you ready to give us some 23 comments?
24 MS. BESADE: Yes. Just let me get my 25 paperwork please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
146 1 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And we are 2 running over, but that's fine. We want to hear from 3 the rest of the people who have signed up to talk to 4 us this afternoon. After Cynthia we're going to go to 5 Melodie Peters, then Michael Steinberg, Mitzi Bowman, 6 Peter Bowman, and Walter Parahaus. Is that the 7 correct -- Parahaus? All right.
8 MS. BESADE: Good afternoon. My name is 9 Cynthia Besade. I'm not a member of any group, 10 coalition. I'm just myself. I'm just an individual 11 -- an individual who lost their father a little over 12 a year ago who was the most -- excuse me -- it's a 13 little bit difficult to talk about this because of his 14 loss.
15 My father was a pipefitter at Northeast 16 Utilities for over 20 years. He saw many violations 17 of safety, and he became a whistleblower because he 18 couldn't tolerate the way things were done at the 19 plant any longer. He was fired for reporting those 20 safety concerns.
21 I'm here today to talk for him, and for 22 the 60-some people that are on this list, who have 23 either lost their lives to cancer or are still dealing 24 with the illness. I would say that it's --
25 approximately two-thirds of the people on this list NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
147 1 are now dead.
2 You can go to the cemetery and see their 3 stone, but you cannot see their face, and you cannot 4 feel their hands, and you cannot feel their love and 5 devotion to a community and to an area that was so 6 pristine when we came here -- I, as a child, three and 7 a half years old, where he brought us to 5th Avenue in 8 Waterford as it was a beautiful community and a 9 pristine area on the water, so that his family and his 10 children could enjoy the types of things that he did 11 when he vacationed in Pine Grove as a child with his 12 family.
13 Let me just tell you about a few people on 14 my list. The first one, of course, is my father, who 15 died at the age of 66 after fighting a virulent type 16 of cancer that was hard to identify, which was 17 identified in May and he expired the evening of August 18 16, 2003.
19 I must say that watching him suffer and 20 fight the disease was the most heart-wrenching thing 21 I've ever seen in my life. But to watch him die was 22 the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. To watch 23 him still fight for life when he knew that it was all 24 over, it was difficult, and we had to reassure him 25 that we would be okay, and that he could go.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
148 1 The second person on this list happens to 2 be his best friend, who suffered from brain cancer and 3 died approximately in 1980 at the age of 50 years. He 4 had several surgeries. He sat in our living room, and 5 I served him coffee and refreshment as he enjoyed the 6 company and visitation of my father.
7 Many, many of my father's and my mother's 8 friends are afflicted. But more than that, more of my 9 friends and family and their families are afflicted.
10 We can go down the street, and just about every other 11 household was affected.
12 As a young person, as a teenager, I was 13 babysitting to raise some money, and I would take care 14 of the children in the neighborhood. The first child 15 I took care of was under the age of three, and he 16 suffered from leukemia.
17 He couldn't play with the other children 18 in the neighborhood because he -- his immune system 19 was so compromised from the treatments that he was 20 receiving for the leukemia that his parents had to 21 fence -- actually fence him in or he would escape and 22 go play with the other children where he was 23 susceptible to picking up germs and things that would 24 make him ill and threaten his life.
25 So to walk up and down the street where I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
. . 234-4433 (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
149 1 would catch the school bus and wave at the young boy 2 behind a fence. Literally, he was a prisoner in his 3 own home.
4 Two doors down from his location there was 5 a young girl nine years old who was my sister's friend 6 where she had sleepovers. We had little parties 7 together. We played at the beach. There were many, 8 many fun times that we shared with that family. She 9 died at the age of nine years from tumors on her 10 spine.
11 She suffered greatly, but she accepted the 12 fact and was a brave young soldier, much braver than 13 I as I cried at her funeral. I could not believe that 14 a young person could be taken from such a terrible and 15 devastating disease.
16 As time went on, it wasn't much time, but 17 more and more folks started to come down with certain 18 types of cancers. But they seemed to be the same --
19 brain cancers in men, leukemia and lymphomas in 20 children. We had many, many prominent people in the 21 community lose their life to this devastating disease, 22 people who had lived here and made this their home and 23 brought their children up and enjoyed the same 24 amenities that we did living in such a pristine area 25 with all the natural resources available on the NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
150 1 Niantic River, which left us to be less than two miles 2 from the location of Millstone when it was built.
3 They came into the area and proposed that 4 we were going to have lots of energy, lots of 5 electricity, at a very cheap rate, non-polluting.
6 You're going to have your streets basically lined with 7 gold.
8 Well, as the people in the community went 9 to work there, and took in the information that was 10 given to them about their safety, they accepted that.
11 They accepted that working there posed some risk, and 12 that they would be exposed to some types of radiation.
13 But never were they told that they were not protected 14 fully.
15 So on this list I have many workers that 16 were there and are not with us any longer. Three of 17 them happened to be in a department entitled Site 18 Maintenance. In 1993 -- excuse me, 1994, that 19 department was deleted. Those people were met at the 20 door and told that they had lost their jobs.
21 Why? Well, they talked about it being 22 downsized. Well, in reality, three people in that 23 department with brain cancer probably scared them to 24 death, especially when two of them died. The third 25 remains alive but does not enjoy the quality of life NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
151 1 that any of us do. He can't walk. He is confined to 2 a wheelchair. He cannot leave his home.
3 He was a loyal employee of the plant, went 4 to work every day, vomiting, headaches. There is no 5 treatment left that can help him. He has lost all of 6 his function as a person that I knew and loved.
7 This goes on and on. Just across the 8 street, I went to high school. My classmates 9 developed cancers. Their parents developed cancers.
10 They lived on Jordan Cove. They lived around the 11 corner. They lived along Spidhead Road, Logger Hill, 12 Niantic River Road -- the avenues as they are 13 described, the small neighborhoods -- Misphan Court, 14 10th Avenue.
15 People that were ill and went on 16 experienced a certain degree of remission until the 17 cancer came back and took them. And when I was 18 burying my friends at the age of 31, and watching 19 their families left to figure out what to do -- how do 20 we handle this? Who do we talk to about this?
21 Gee, it was my husband, and it was his 22 father, and they were only separated by years apart, 23 but they had the same disease and they both are dead, 24 and they're both buried in the same plot.
25 Females that went on to have their legs NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
152 1 amputated because bone cancer had taken them. Pardon 2 me, at age 11 they developed this disease.
3 Many people along different avenues, but 4 more importantly across Jordan Cove on Shore Road, 5 picked up a lot. We had my friends, their fathers, 6 dying from this terrible cancer, the same type of 7 cancer developing in a father and in his son, 8 separated no greater than a year -- many things such 9 as Gail has -- Gail Merrill has informed you about, 10 things that do happen and you cannot turn away from.
11 As I said, I'm just a citizen. I'm just 12 a community member. I'm just somebody that knew these 13 people. These are people that were in my life. They 14 were my friends. They are people I went to school 15 with and played sports with, and they're not here any 16 longer. I have to speak for them. I have to make you 17 aware of the fact that they have died and suffered, 18 and their families continue to suffer, and the 19 heartbreak goes on and on and on.
20 One brilliant young lady who went to law 21 school but passed from liver cancer one month prior to 22 graduation. It was another heartbreak to learn that 23 her brother and mother accepted her law degree 24 posthumously.
25 Now, these people are not just people that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
153 1 have done, and, you know, got sick and died. They 2 could have been -- they were contributing members to 3 the community. They were loved. They were entitled 4 to life, not entitled to suffering and death.
5 People who owned businesses that no longer 6 are in existence because their owner/operator has 7 expired -- expired after suffering a breast cancer 8 that left them lingering for years. This has been 9 very cruel. We have people that were in the same 10 family but maybe not in the same household but across 11 the street and down the street and your next-door 12 neighbor.
13 Then there were many, many people that I 14 knew of indirectly, and I've added them to this list 15 because they count. And, again, many of them are 16 located on Seabreeze Drive. Why Seabreeze? Who 17 knows? Why 5th Avenue? Who knows? The way the wind 18 blew? We'll never know.
19 We now know that the radiation that was 20 released got into our water. We drank from wells. It 21 became part of the soil that we grew our gardens in, 22 and certainly it was in the air that we breathe, at 23 times when they had scheduled releases of radioactive 24 effluent, and then at other times that they had non-25 scheduled radioactive releases.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
.(202). 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154 1 Twenty-two of, as I know, in the year 1978 2 when the facility tried to keep that quiet from --
3 that then Governor Grosso. Boy, when she found out, 4 she was mad as a hatter, and she went right down.
5 And I don't exactly know what the outcome 6 of that was, or what the punishment was, and the only 7 reason that they even knew that they had these 8 unscheduled releases was because people along the 9 coast, the submarine base, people all the way to Maine 10 had their monitors reacting, going off, and they were 11 wondering, where is this radiation coming from? So 12 apparently on those days the wind blew north.
13 Millstone has also been linked --
14 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Cynthia, are you 15 almost finished?
16 MS. BESADE: I would say one or two more 17 minutes.
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay.
19 MS. BESADE: Thank you.
20 MS. BURTON: Excuse me. I have to change 21 a tape, if you don't mind.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: How long is that 23 going to take, Nancy, because we really need to go on.
24 MS. BESADE: I'm sure it's -- she's got it 25 in her hand.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
155 1 MS. BURTON: Okay. Thank you.
2 MS. BESADE: Thank you. Once again, I 3 just have another short comment, and I'll be through.
4 Thank you for your attention.
5 Many of the cancers on my list involve 6 children, as I've stated earlier. The list includes 7 a high school student just across the street at 8 Waterford High who was diagnosed last -- in the last 9 couple of years with ovarian cancer. She survives at 10 this time, but who is to say for how long. And tell 11 me why a young person in the 10th grade should have to 12 deal with something like that.
13 To the extent that this exposure to 14 radioactivity from Millstone was responsible for my 15 father's death, and the deaths and illnesses of my 16 friends and neighbors, these deaths and illnesses were 17 avoidable. And something could have been done. We 18 could have been told. We certainly could have been 19 warned, not reassured that there was no threat to the 20 public after any incident at the plant -- the standard 21 line that's always given.
22 So at this time, I cite the reports filed 23 with the NRC by the expert witnesses for the 24 Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone that oppose 25 the application for Millstone's renewed license. Why NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
156 1 should we -- why should anyone -- any one individual 2 allow them the opportunity to continue to commit the 3 next generations, those that are not even born at this 4 time, that will suffer the ill effects of the 5 radiation, why should we commit them to another couple 6 of generations of pain and suffering and gross 7 disease?
8 So at this time I say if these deaths and 9 illnesses were avoidable, the role of Millstone is 10 unforgivable.
11 Thank you very much for your time.
12 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. Thank you.
13 (Applause.)
14 Can we have some of those for the -- do 15 you want to put those on the transcript?
16 MS. BESADE: I will.
17 FACILITATOR CAMERON: All right.
18 MS. BESADE: Thank you.
19 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Melodie Peters.
20 MS. PETERS: I guess we're two minutes shy 21 of saying good evening, and thank you for this 22 opportunity, including the small section where my 23 integrity as an individual and a lawmaker was 24 challenged.
25 I am Melodie Peters. I'm a citizen. I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
.(202). 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
157 1 a former State Senator, 12 years, former Energy and 2 Technologies Committee Chairperson, and currently 3 doing outreach work for Dominion.
4 I also am coping with cancer in my own 5 family, and was a large part of the reason why I chose 6 not to run again. So I'm not unfamiliar to the issue 7 of cancer and how devastating it can be.
8 I have confidence in the process, and I 9 have confidence in the expertise of the 10 decisionmakers. And I'm speaking to you gentlemen 11 because I'm assuming that you're the reason why we're 12 having this public hearing -- the ability to be able 13 to testify.
14 First, let me say I appreciate and support 15 the preliminary recommendations of the NRC staff, 16 which states that the Commission determined that the 17 adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for 18 Millstone are not so great that preserving the option 19 of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers 20 would be unreasonable.
21 The State Department of Environmental 22 Protection, recognizing the importance of these plants 23 as a valued energy source -- and I think this was said 24 earlier -- equivalent to 48 to 50 percent of 25 Connecticut's power needs met by Millstone while being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
158 1 clean, efficient, and least costly.
2 I didn't laugh during your testimonies, 3 and I expect the same respect.
4 Chose to extend the 1997 operating license 5 while continuing to resolve the reactor cooling 6 issues. I have been told these deliberations are much 7 further along than the last time we met in May and 8 that are nearing completion.
9 Some of the characteristics of Dominion 10 that I personally admire includes their willingness --
11 I'm so angry right now I can't even see straight, so 12 I'm going to stick to my text, because I have sat here 13 along with the rest of you since 1:30, being patient, 14 feeling as though I have been criticized and I don't 15 feel like the same respect is due.
16 Some of the characteristics that I 17 personally have for Dominion that I admire includes 18 their willingness to comply, to problem-solve, and to 19 explore good, sound, and progressive alternatives to 20 avoid future negative environmental impacts and to 21 promote good environmental practices.
22 An example is Dominion's partnership in 23 the Long Island Sound Foundation, Dominion's 24 thoughtful approach to dry, cask storage for spent 25 fuel, and its willingness to study winter flounder.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
159 1 It is my opinion that Millstone 2 contributes in a smaller way -- this is a personal 3 opinion, different from what others may want you to 4 believe -- in a smaller way, to the demise of our 5 winter flounder. But because they are the big
- 6. guerrillas, Millstone becomes the easiest target. And 7 they are willing to step up to the plate and make the 8 changes that are necessary.
9 I sincerely hope that this issue is 10 addressed comprehensively. Millstone 2 and 3 have 11 demonstrated a longer run time in the history of the 12 plants due to the uneventful operations translating to 13 safety and efficiency. What this means is that Units 14 2 and 3 generated the equivalent of 90 percent of the 15 power in the same timeframe than when all three units 16 were up.
17 Recently, the American Society of 18 Mechanical Engineers endorsed nuclear power as a safe 19 and efficient source for supplying energies, and 20 addressing our growing needs. Aside from my own 21 support for renewable energy -- and my record over the 22 12 years certainly indicates my support for renewable 23 energy, including the restructuring bills.
24 Aside from my own, the engineers state 25 that most renewable energy sources are expensive, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
160 1 unpredictable, and dangerous to the environment.
2 Nuclear energy could be vital to addressing these 3 environmental issues without creating others.
4 It states in the generic environmental 5 impact draft executive summary, "If the Millstone 6 operating licenses are not renewed, and the units 7 cease operation, the adverse impacts of likely 8 alternatives will not be smaller than those associated 9 with continued operation of Millstone. The impacts 10 may, in fact, be greater in some areas." And over my 11 years of expertise and research, I concur.
12 Finally, our needs for energy continue to 13 grow as we develop economically and certainly 14 technologically. Locating and building new generation 15 plants of any kind becomes problematic because of the 16 NIMBY attitudes -- not in my backyard -- the NIMBY 17 attitudes coupled with the state and local 18 restrictions.
19 Extending the license of already safe and 20 efficient plants seemed to be the wisest thing to do.
21 And I thank you for your time.
22 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Melodie.
23 Okay. We have Michael Steinberg at this 24 point. And we have another meeting coming up, open 25 house starting at 6:00. So I'm going to try to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
161 1 adjourn this at 5:30 at the latest. So we have a few 2 more speakers, and I would just ask you to try to be 3 as concise as possible because we are --
4 MR. STEINBERG: I have a lot to say, but 5 I'll try to be as 6oncise as possible.
6 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Michael.
7 MR. STEINBERG: Can everybody hear me? Is 8 that better?
9 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Good. All right.
10 MR. STEINBERG: Okay.
11 FACILITATOR CAMERON: This is Michael 12 Steinberg.
13 MR. STEINBERG: Yes. I'm Michael 14 Steinberg, and I'm from Niantic, and among other 15 things I'm a writer specializing in investigative 16 journalism, and I've looked into -- done a lot of 17 stuff about Millstone. I'm the author of this book 18 "Millstone and Me: Sex, Lies, and Radiation in 19 Southeastern Connecticut." So my point of view should 20 be obvious.
21 I have an article that just came out in Z 22 Magazine, a national magazine from Woods Hole, 23 Massachusetts. And the article is called "New Nukes,"
24 about the U.S. nuclear power industry staging a 25 comeback, and it wants you to pay for it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
162 1 And Dominion is one of the leading players 2 in this development -- attempted development of new 3 nuclear plants. So as I said, I'm from Niantic. My 4 family so far has been living in Niantic for five 5 generations. My great-grandfather -- my great-6 grandparents came over from Scotland, and my great-7 grandfather, George Kirk, was -- worked in the 8 quarries in this region, including at Millstone, the 9 Millstone Quarry which was very prominent in its day.
10 The quarry is now the discharge canal for Millstone 11 Nuclear Power plant's radioactive -- liquid 12 radioactive waste.
13 I want to respond to some of the things in 14 the draft EIS, but before that I want to introduce 15 some new material that we've become aware of since 16 that time. Joseph Mangano from the Radiation and 17 Public Health Project gave us some material recently.
18 Mr. Mangano has been interviewed and profiled in The 19 New York Times, USA Today. And the Radiation and 20 Public Health Project has also been interviewed on 21 National Public Radio, among other media coverage.
22 Mr. Mangano's recent information is that 23 local health declines when Millstone opens improves 24 after closing, in which he reports that the cancer 25 instance rate in New London County was 8 percent below NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
163 1 the State in the '50s and '60s before Millstone 2 opened.
3 After Millstone began operating in 1970, 4 this rate has risen steadily until now it has reached 5 a level 6 percent above the State rate. So that's 6 going from 8 percent below to 6 percent above. So he 7 -- Mangano says that of the over 1,300 New London 8 residents diagnosed with cancer each year, nearly 200 9 can be considered in excess of what would be expected 10 if earlier levels had been maintained.
11 So I'm not saying -- you know, nobody I 12 don't think is saying that Millstone is causing all 13 the cancers in New London County, but because of its 14 radioactive emissions it is causing this excess 15 amount, and it's at -- in the historical 35 years it's 16 been going on.
17 Mangano also reports that about -- infant 18 mortality deaths of children one year and younger. In 19 1994 and '95 when Millstone was operating, there were 20 136 such deaths, unfortunately. When Millstone closed 21 -- was closed, pretty much for all of '96 and '97, 22 that rate dropped, and then the number dropped to 105.
23 And it goes into a little more detail in the report 24 I'm going to submit to you after I finish speaking.
25 One second, please.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
164 1 This makes it all very, very plain, the 2 way he lays it out. '94/'95, Millstone was operating 3 at 80 percent capacity, and there were 136 deaths, the 4 rate of 7.41. '96/'97, it was only operating at 10 5 percent. The deaths dropped to 105, which is -- the 6 rate dropped to 6.07, which is over an 18 percent 7 drop.
8 Now, when they started up again in 9 '98/'99, at first they operated during those years 50 10 percent. The rate was minus 3.1 compared to minus 11 18.1, so that's quite a difference. And then, in 2000 12 and 2001, when Millstone was operating at 90 percent, 13 the rate actually went up 8.8 percent. So that's from 14 minus 18.1 to plus 8.8.
15 And so I'm going to submit this report to 16 you. It also talks about the tooth fairy project, 17 where this group has been testing Strontium-90 in 18 children's teeth. And what it has found in 19 Connecticut so far is that Connecticut has -- along 20 with Pennsylvania has the highest amount of Strontium-21 90 on average of the six states that they've tested so 22 far.
23 And as far as the counties near nuclear 24 plants, which are Fairfield near Indian Point and our 25 county, New London, near Millstone, they have the --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
165 1 an average concentration, 180 percent more, which is 2 more than double that of the other counties in 3 Connecticut.
4 And it's known that Strontium-90 doesn't 5 exist in nature, only enters the environment and our 6 bodies through nuclear weapons fallout and nuclear 7 reactor emissions.
8 Also, what I was trying to talk about 9 before -- Dr. Sternglass sent the NRC a declaration 10 last August which wasn't included in their 11 consideration of the evidence about human health and 12 radioactive emissions, the possible effect on human 13 health. So I'm going to -- you should already have 14 that, but I'm going to just read a few short things 15 out of it to see why I thought it was so important 16 that it needed to be considered.
17 He says, "I'm a Professor Emeritus of 18 radiological physics at the University of Pittsburgh 19 School of Medicine. I have written and published 20 extensively in the area of low-level radiation in 21 human health, and about the adverse effects of 22 radioactive emissions from the Millstone Nuclear Power 23 Station in particular."
24 He's the author of a book "Secret Fallout:
25 Low-Level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three Mile NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
166 1 Island" published by McGraw-Hill in 1981. He has 2 testified before Congress on this subject. And in 3 brief, what he has -- what he goes on to say is that 4 there is a causal relationship, which the NRC denies 5 between Millstone's radioactive emissions over the 6 years and negative health effects.
7 As he says, "It is my professional opinion 8 that the radioactive releases from the Millstone 9 Nuclear Power Station, since its startup in 1970, have 10 caused and will continue to cause excess infant 11 mortality, as Joe Mangano just showed us, low birth 12 weight babies, leukemia, and cancer, as well as 13 increased rates of both chronic and infectious 14 diseases in the towns around Millstone as well as in 15 New London County, and Connecticut as a whole." And 16 he goes on in great detail about how he has come to 17 that conclusion.
18 So I'm going to address now the things in 19 the draft EIS that gave me problems, because at the 20 last meeting I submitted a number of documents 21 pointing to negative relation -- negative health 22 effects from Millstone's radiation. And one of them 23 was cancer incidence in Connecticut counties, 1995 24 through '99, from the Department of Public Health, 25 Connecticut Tumor Registry, which indicated that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
167 1 during those -- that period, New London County had the 2 highest rate, age-adjusted rate of incidence of 3 cancers, in the State.
4 And as I also reported before, it had the 5 second highest such rate for males, not to exclude us.
6 It was basically in a statistical dead heat with 7 Tolland County.
8 Now, in the draft environmental impact 9 statement, it didn't report the fact that males were 10 second highest. And as I stated at the hearing, that 11 they were basically number one also. So we're showing 12 the highest rates in the State, and this is the most 13 current information from the Tumor Registry. Why is 14 that?
15 I also reported that that report went into 16 specific kinds of cancers, and compared the rates 17 between different counties in Connecticut. And for 18 the number ones, the NRC report characterized them as 19 several.
20 Now, if I went to Dutch's Tavern in New 21 London and -- you know, to have a few drinks, and I 22 got pulled over by a cop on my way home and he said, 23 "How many drinks did you have tonight?" and I said 24 "several," and he said, "Could you be more specific?"
25 and I said, "Well, actually 12," you know, I don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
168 1 think he'd be too happy about that, because that's how 2 many number ones New London County had including 3 breast cancer, cervical cancer, uterine cancer, other 4 female genital cancers; liver cancer for males, 5 bladder cancer for males and females, and colon and 6 rectum for females, colon females, totaling 12.
7 There are six more number twos, five more 8 number threes, seven number fours. And also, I 9 presented a document called "The Radiation 10 Compensation Act," an act of Congress in 1990 that 11 compensated people who were downwind from nuclear 12 testing in Nevada and Utah and Arizona, and as well as 13 uranium miners who were -- basically said that these 14 people were injured in the interest of U.S. national 15 security, and they should be compensated.
16 And it specified specific kinds of cancers 17 and what -- which establishes a causal relationship, 18 once again, between low-level radiation and specific 19 kinds of disease. In this case, there are too many of 20 them that are on the list of -- where New London 21 County in the Tumor Registry report was number 1 22 through 4.
23 For instance, liver cancer, which was the 24 number 1 for males, breast cancer number 1, and 25 multiple myeloma in which for females in the county NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
169 1 was tied with Fairfield for number 1, and thyroid 2 cancer number 3.
3 FACILITATOR CAMERON: (Inaudible comment 4 from an unmiked location.)
5 MR. STEINBERG: Yes, I understand that.
6 How about three to five more minutes?
7 FACILITATOR CAMERON: We really -- I mean, 8 we really --
9 MR. STEINBERG: Well, this goes to the 10 heart -- this goes to the heart of the problem with 11 the draft EIS. I'm just going to skip on to something 12 else that's important to me.
13 PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible comment from an 14 unmiked location.)
15 MR. STEINBERG: Okay. Let me -- I'm not 16 going to finish up quite yet, but I have -- next I'm 17 going to talk about in the draft EIS on page 243 it 18 says, in relation to radioactive-type stuff, "The 19 applicant does not anticipate any significant changes 20 to the radioactive effluent releases of exposures from 21 Millstone operations during the renewal period. And, 22 therefore, the impacts to the environment are not 23 expected to change."
24 Now, unfortunately, from -- this is from 25 Dominion's annual radiological environmental operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
170 1 report from 2003, where it's talking about Tritium, 2 which is radioactive hydrogen. It says, "Since the 3 restart of Unit 3 in 1998, and Unit 2 in 1999, Tritium 4 releases in liquid effluents have risen to levels at 5 or above those observed in the pre-shutdown period."
6 Now, the Tritium releases into Long Island 7 Sound are at record highs for Millstone. And so that 8 doesn't agree with the conclusion of the NRC, which 9 says they're going to stay the same.
10 Now, when Mr. Emch and I talked after the 11 meeting last May, I raised this concern with him, and 12 he informed me that there are filters that could be 13 put on so that the Tritium levels could be lower, and 14 that they're expensive.
15 But I think it's incumbent that Dominion 16 take action right now. We know in the past that 17 they've taken such action. Unfortunately, they had to 18 be coerced into it -- as I learned from this report, 19 a corporate profile of Dominion resources by public 20 citizen in Washington, D.C.
21 They violated the Clean Air Act and, in 22 April 2003, Dominion -- VEPCO agreed to a $1.2 billion 23 enforcement settlement. $1.2 billion -- that's about 24 the same as they paid for Millstone -- with the U.S.
25 Department of Justice and the U.S. EPA for violations NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
171 1 of the Clean Air Act.
2 The EPA charged VEPCO with failing to 3 obtain the requisite permits for significant 4 modifications it made to its coal-fired power plant in 5 West Virginia that resulted in increased power 6 generating capacity. The Clean Air Act requires that 7 such modifications be accompanied by the installation 8 of pollution control equipment to mitigate 9 environmental contamination.
10 Well, VEPCO neglected to install such 11 equipment, which according to the EPA resulted in the 12 release of "massive amounts" of sulfur dioxide, 13 nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter. So, 14 obviously, they're not going to do it of their own 15 free will, if they did that kind of massive pollution 16 in West Virginia.
17 But it's incumbent upon the NRC and the 18 State Environmental Protection Agency to have this 19 filter -- these filters installed immediately.
20 I'm against the operation of Millstone 21 right now, and I certainly don't think it should be 22 relicensed. But -- and this -- any relicensing 23 application that has come before the NRC has been 24 approved. It's really just a rubber stamp process.
25 And so I -- I'm afraid it's going to happen against my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234.4433
172 1 will and the will of many other people.
2 But it should be made a condition of the 3 relicensing as you rubber stamp their application, 4 that they put on these filters right away, because the 5 position of the nuclear industry is to operate at 6 maximum capacity. The more these Unit 2 and Unit 3 7 operate because of their design, the more Tritium is 8 going to get poured into Long Island Sound.
9 Just as an example, in 2003, the operating 10 capacity of Unit 3 was 99.8 percent. And for Unit 2, 11 it was 80 percent, but that was only because it had to 12 shut down for refueling.
13 I have a lot of trouble with all of the --
14 and I'm going to wrap up now. I have a lot of trouble 15 with all of the -- this entire Section 4.7, evaluation 16 of potential new and significant information on the 17 impacts of operations during the renewal.
18 I gave one example with a document about 19 cancer rates from the Tumor Registry report. But it 20 -- other information that I presented was not 21 represented accurately, which, I had more time, I 22 would go into. And all in all, it indicates to me a 23 bias on the part of the NRC in favor of the nuclear 24 industry. And that was characterized by the fact that 25 -- how they treated the information that I presented.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
173 1 But the fact that Dr. Sternglass' 2 declaration from last August was somehow not 3 considered whatsoever, and the fact that the NRC 4 consulted with Dominion, with Department of Health 5 here, the Department of Environmental Protection, who 6 basically all have the same position on this issue.
7 They're talking to themselves, where nobody talked to 8 Dr. Sternglass, nobody talked to Joseph Mangano, or 9 anybody else in the Radiation and Public Health 10 Project.
11 And so you're not really representing the 12 public when you don't talk to people who have a 13 different point of view, which is the whole point of 14 why we're here, because these people are presenting 15 evidence that shows why our loved ones are suffering 16 these diseases here.
17 And so until there is some great reform or 18 the NRC is abolished, along with the nuclear industry, 19 we're not safe, and we're right back where we were in 20 1995, 10 years ago, when everybody said -- all the 21 people in power said, "Everything is okay." John 22 Roland came to Millstone and said, "Everything is safe 23 there."
24 And then -- then they had to be shut down, 25 you know, for over two years, and you had to plead NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
174 1 guilty to 20 Federal felonies and pay one big, old 2 fine, etcetera, etcetera. So the same game is going 3 on; the face has changed. But this game has gone on 4 too long. This game is over.
5 These plants need to be shut down, and 6 it's criminal to relicense a place like Millstone.
7 Thank you.
8 (Applause.)
9 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Okay. And you're 10 going to give us some things for the record, which 11 we'll appreciate.
12 We have two final speakers. Mitzi Bowmar ,L 13 would you like to come up? Then --
14 MS. BOWMAN: (Inaudible comment from an 15 unmiked location.)
16 FACILITATOR CAMERON: No.
17 MS. BOWMAN: No?
18 FACILITATOR CAMERON: I don't mind if h4Ml 19 goes first.
20 MS. BOWMAN: You don't mind. Okay.
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: No. This is Peter 22 Bowman, and I know that if we need to pay attention to 23 -- more attention or explain better why we didn't 24 respond to comments last time,' we'll do that.
25 There's been a lot of talk about the tooth NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
175 1 fairy study. There is an NRC background publication 2 on the table back there that also talks about the 3 tooth fairy project, for those of you who are 4 interested in seeing it.
5 And, Mr. Bowman, thank you.
6 MR. BOWMAN: My name is Peter Bowman. I 7 am the coordinator of a group that is based in New 8 Haven, Connecticut. It's called Don't Waste 9 Connecticut. We've been involved in energy issues for 10 many, many years, and we're part of the Coalition 11 Against Millstone. And we certainly will not 12 subscribe to this impact statement that's being 13 presented today.
14 I have two or three comments on what I 15 heard, and, by the way, I would just preface my 16 remarks by saying that Dr. Sternglass and Joe Mangano 17 have been mentioned a number of times, and are 18 certainly very, very valuable resources, but I would 19 say we have a resource center in New Haven, and I have 20 a whole list of papers that have been published in 21 peer review journals on the effect of low-level 22 radiation on health.
23 I don't have it with me, but if anyone is 24 interested, they could see me and I'll try to get a 25 copy of these papers to them at some point.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
176 1 The first thing I'd like to talk about is 2 the ICRP, the International Committee on Radiation 3 Protection. It was mentioned earlier in the 4 presentation that the releases from Millstone were 5 based on the fact that IC -- that we're well within 6 the ICRP limits.
7 Well, the ICRP -- the International 8 Committee on Radiation Protection -- is a self-9 appointed body, mainly from the nuclear industry, and 10 along with UNSCEAR, which is the United Nations 11 Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 12 Radiation, they have been the main setters of 13 standards in the world for the last 40 or 50 years.
14 They base their findings mainly on the 15 victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the health 16 effects that occurred after the bombs were dropped on 17 Japan. But since then, there has been very much 18 research done at the cellular level, which has shown 19 -- and this is pointed out in the BEIR V, which is the 20 National Academy of Sciences -- the Biological Effect 21 of Ionizing Radiation -- in BEIR V, they make the 22 statement that any -- any amount of radiation can 23 cause harm.
24 So a single ionizing event of radiation 25 can cause harm, and that's what is being looked at at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
177 1 the cellular level. And at this point it's being 2 shown that the ICRP and those bodies that are setting 3 the standards are 100 or even 1,000 times off the 4 base.
5 And where we couldn' t account for many of 6 the leukemia and cancer clusters in various parts of 7 the world, it's shown that if you discount ICRP and 8 start to look at some of the cellular research, such 9 as the bystander effect, which is where an ionizing 10 track passes by a cell, a nearby cell, it doesn't have 11 to touch the cell, but the energy given off will 12 affect the cell.
13 And then we have the second event theory 14 put out by Chris Busby in England, whereby DNA -- the 15 DNA is hit by an ionizing particle and a second event 16 occurs within a short period of time before the cell 17 can -- the DNA cell can repair the damage, and then it 18 mutates.
19 These have been shown -- this research has 20 been shown to account now for these cancer clusters 21 that we see around nuclear facilities. And I would 22 urge people to go beyond the ICRP and UNSCEAR and look 23 at some of the more recent research.
24 In the UK now, they have the -- in Europe, 25 I should say, they have the European Committee on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
178 1 Radiation Risk, which looked at the ICRP model and 2 found it's badly flawed, and we should be looking in 3 other directions at that, which they are doing.
4 Another thing that came up was the 5 question of cost benefits, and what wasn't mentioned, 6 at least I didn't hear it, was Price Anderson. Now, 7 as most of you in this room know that Price Anderson 8 -- Price Anderson Act was initiated in the '50s, which 9 allowed the nuclear power industry to go operate.
10 The nuclear power industry didn't want to 11 operate, because of the liability, because of the 12 unknown factors that were -- that was in there, not 13 just after the use of the bomb, etcetera. And the 14 Price Anderson Act covers the insurance to a certain 15 degree of the nuclear industry and let's them off the 16 hook for liability.
17 And I think someone pointed out earlier 18 that you can find that out ,if you look at your 19 homeowner's policy, or your automobile policy, you'll 20 find that they have exclusionary clauses in there 21 which they will not pay you one cent for any damage 22 that's caused by radioactive contamination.l 23 So your home, your automobile, and all of 24 your possessions, if they ever become contaminated 25 from a release from Millstone or any other place, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
179 1 won't get one penny for it.
2 Price Anderson -- I don't know what the 3 fund is now, but it's probably around $9 billion. But 4 it's been estimated that an accident on the scale of 5 the Chernobyl accident, or something like it, probably 6 runs into $3- or $4- or $500 billion. And so there's 7 no cost-benefit there, and that's not even mentioned 8 in this impact statement.
9 And the other question was evacuation. I 10 always laugh at evacuation, because as far as I know, 11 there has never been -- in a nuclear plant in this 12 country, there has never been a full-scale drill as to 13 what evacuation would -- how it would occur. I know 14 they have had drills with the first responders and 15 that type of thing, but the public, who are the people 16 who are supposed to be protected by this evacuation 17 plan, have never been involved in an evacuation plan.
18 And when you think about it, when they 19 talk about the 10-mile limit, how could they be? Is 20 the radiation going to stop at some invisible wall at 21 10 miles, and the person living 10.1 miles away is 22 going to sit in their house while the other 50,000 23 people are running down the road? I don't believe it.
24 Anyway, it's getting late. It's been a 25 long day. And I-- that's about all I've got to say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
180 1 for now. But don't -- don't use the ICRP model as 2 your model for radiation. That's my main point.
3 Thank you.
4 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Dr.
5 Bowman. Watch your step.
6 (Applause.)
7 Mitzi?
8 We have one more. Mitzi. Our final 9 speaker is Mitzi Bowman, and we'll try to put the 10 microphone so that it's easy to use here.
11 Mitzi, how is that?
12 MS. BOWMAN: Thank you. There isn't too 13 much more to say. Well, there really is, but there's 14 not much more time. But I just wanted to talk to the 15 love affair between the corporations that produce this 16 poison and the government agencies and agencies such 17 as the DEP and the EPA and the ICRP -- this love 18 affair between them that allows these lies to be told.
19 And it looks like the reason for what's 20 going on now, the extension of licenses, is that our 21 administration right now has said that they want about 22 50 -- at least 50 more nuclear plants in the country.
23 And they're going to need time, because it takes a 24 long time, especially when people like us get up there 25 to fight back -- it takes a long time to build these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 .(202).234-4433
181 1 plants.
2 And I think they need these extensions of 3 licenses in order to give time for a new wave of 4 nuclear power, where all the money and subsidies, our 5 taxpayer subsidies -- including the Price Anderson Act 6 -- will be going to these new plants, costing billions 7 and billions of dollars, while that money, if we 8 needed that much subsidy -- if we had that much 9 subsidy going to clean energy, energy efficiency, 10 solar, and wind, we wouldn't need a single oil plant 11 or a nuclear plant. We could have a whole country 12 filled with clean energy and no cancers from it.
13 And by the way, I was told to mention --
14 I'm sorry, Pete -- Pete, too, has metastatic prostate 15 cancer. So we are all suffering from this, and you 16 guys who are promoting it should be ashamed of 17 yourself. Look into your consciences.
18 And I have a lot more to say, but I'm not 19 going to say it now. Thanks.
20 (Applause.)
21 FACILITATOR CAMERON: Thank you, Mitzi.
22 And thank all of you for your comments and 23 patience.
24 And, Andy, would you like to just close it 25 out for us? Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
182 1 MR. KUGLER: Obviously, I want to be very 2 brief at this point. I'd just like to thank everybody 3 who did come out today. I want to thank you for your 4 patience. It has been a long afternoon, but we did 5 want to hear what everybody had to say.
6 I want to remind you that if you do have 7 other comments on the draft environmental impact 8 statement, you can submit them either in writing or by 9 e-mail through March 2nd. And we will be staying 10 around after the meeting has ended. If you have any 11 additional questions or if you want to talk to members 12 of the staff, we'll still be here.
13 And with that, I just want to say, again, 14 thank you for coming.
15 FACILITATOR CAMERON: And we'll be back at 16 7:00 for a meeting tonight, and 6:00 open house.
17 (Whereupon, at 5:37 p.m., the proceedings 18 in the foregoing matter were adjourned.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
ATTACHMENTS
- Remarks and exhibit by Joshua Horton, Supervisor, Town of Southold, NY (17 Pages)
- Exhibit by Cynthia Besade, "Millstone Community Cancer Victims" (5 Pages)
- Remarks by Steve Scace, Director Nuclear Safety, Dominion (3 Pages)
- Remarks and exhibit by Gail Merill, (3 Pages)
- Exhibit by Judi Friedman, Chairperson, People's Action for Clean Energy (2 Pages)
- Remarks by Marie Domenici, (2 Pages)
- Exhibit by Michael Steinberg, Radiation and Public Health Project, "Risk of cancer and other diseases from the operation of the Millstone nuclear unit" (14 Pages), "Local health declines when Millstone opens, improves after closing" (1 Page)
- Handout/slides of NRC staff's presentation (17 Pages)
I JOSHUA Y. HORTON Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 4 9 )P SUPERVISOR P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-1823 OTelephone (631) 765-1889 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town of Southold Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Statement - NRC/Millstone January 11,2005
Introduction:
Joshua Y. Horton, Supervisor of the Town of Southold, the easternmost town on the North Fork of Long Island, located on a narrow strip of land directly opposite the Millstone plant across the Long Island Sound.
I have several comments and strenuous objections to make to the DEIS today, which will be further supported by more extensive written comments in the near future. That is necessarily the case because even though a portion of Southold Town is within the EPZ and the rest is just a short ferry ride away, my office received no official notice of these hearings. In fact I raise this as my first objection to the document and the process. Not one person from the NRC, not one person from Dominion, not one person at any stage of our emergency management chain of command or our elected federal delegation contacted my office about this hearing. Make no mistake about it, a portion of my Township, Fishers Island and Plum Island exists within the 10 mile EPZ of Millstone and furthermore, the rest of my Township lies a breath away from the EPZ boundary. To think that a simple notification to an affected municipality was overlooked undermines the credibility of this process out of the gate.
1
- I object that the DEIS contains no evacuation plan for the residents of Southold Town or elsewhere on eastern Long Island. The geography of Long Island creates an extremely dangerous situation for those residents. At the very end of a narrow strip of land, there is only one direction to travel in the case of an emergency - West. There is, in some cases, only one road on which to travel - New York State Route
- 25. By the time us North Forkers reach mid or western Long Island, we will be lined up on the Long Island Expressway behind the millions of other Long Island residents who have the same one and only direction in which to travel. This is a "natural recipe for a manmade disaster" that must be avoided.
- To the extent that the drafters of the DEIS seek to avoid creating an evacuation plan for eastern Long Island on the purported grounds that federal regulations only require such plans to do so within a 10 mile radius, they should and must consider the extreme circumstances that are present and therefore extend the Millstone EPZ as it relates to the North Fork of Long Island. The North Fork of Long Island is directly across the Long Island Sound. Strong winds from the North and Northeast often blow across the water directly to our shores. We are the first affected residents to the south of this plant. Southold Town residents have only two small country roads on which to travel and only one direction in which to go, (west) that takes one further away from Millstone Nuclear Power Plant. To say that we are beyond the affected area is false and cannot be the basis for a proper EIS. With that knowledge, I maintain that it is imperative that the NRC expands the scope of its evacuation planning to a radius that encompasses the entire North Fork of Long Island. I am requesting that a fully funded federal emergency management study of Southold Town's unique geographic challenges and how this relates to the threat of a radioactive release at the Millstone Power Plant be undertaken as part of this GEIS and that the GEIS be considered incomplete without it and furthermore that no permits for this facility be granted until such data is compiled, disseminated, thoroughly discussed in public and its findings implemented. If this cannot be accomplished then I call for the closure of Millstone Nuclear Power Plant.
2
- Since this is a matter of federal concern, and is the subject of federal regulation, it is crucial that the NRC seek and heed the input of federal elective officials in the surrounding areas regarding the concerns of their constituents. I call upon The NRC to request input and guidance from United States Senators Schumer, Clinton, Lieberman and Dodd. The same must be sought from Governors Rell and Pataki. In addition the NRC must seek the council and input from Representative Tim Bishop and his colleagues in Connecticut.
The testimony of these officials must be incorporated into the GEIS and addressed within. The DEIS should not move forward until such input is formally sought and integrated into the document.
- Ladies and Gentlemen, I have made several points, recommendations and requests. On behalf of the 22,000 year round residents that I represent, I demand they all be addressed within the context of this formal GEIS process.
3
.1Jailj.-\l (.-A - OiI OIN
\ it ;TER'. '~ilif; Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Office: (631) 765-1889 Southold, New York 11971 Fax: (631) 765-1823 E-mail: joshua.honon~itown.southold.ny.us
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Compliance Review Matrix for Fishers Island The Fishers Island plan provided for review appears to be esscntially an operations plan, composed mainly of various checklists. For the most part, it did not address planning and mitigation issues. It could not be verified whether Fishers Island maintains a separate plan which addresses pre-event planning and mitigation.
Planning StandardlRequirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not in the Plan Met lI.A.1.a-ldentifies State, Local, Federal, and private sector NUREG Not Met State and Federal Agencies are not organizations that are part of the overall response organization. 0654 clearly identified.
ll.A.2-Functions and responsibilities for major elements in NUREG Not Met The plan does not cite the legal basis emergency response are specified for each organization and key 0654 for key elements in emergency individuals by title. Legal basis for such authorities is cited. response.
Il.A.3-Written agreements between various organizations with NUREG Not Met The plan does not clearly address the emergency response roles are included in the plan or the plan 0654 issue of Mutual Agreements and copies includes descriptions of these matters. are not included in the plan.
ll.C.1.a-Person authorized to request Federal assistance is NUREG Not Met It would appear that the Chief Executive specified by title. 0654 Officer (CEO) would be responsible for requesting Federal assistance, but it is not mentioned as a specific CEO task.
lI.C.1.c - Licensee, Local, and State resources available to NUREG Not Met Resources for Federal assistance and support the Federal response, e.g. air fields, command posts, 0654 support are not identified.
telephone lines, radio frequencies, etc., are specified.
II.C.2-Provisions are made for licensee reps to go to offsite NUREG Not Met Sending a representative to the EOCs, and for offsite organizations to send reps to the licensees 0654 Emergency Operations Facility and the EOF. Plant sending a representative to Fishers Island is not in the plan.
II.C.4-Organizations have identified nuclear and other facilities, NUREG Not Met The actual Letters of Agreement are not organizations, or individuals than can be relied upon to assist in 0654 in the plan.
an emergency. Appropriate letters of agreement have been C-83
Review of Emergency Preparednessat Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning StandardlRequirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not in the Plan Met established for this support.
II.E.7-Draft messages to the public giving instructions with NUREG Not Met Draft letters for protective action are not regard to specific protective actions to be taken by occupants of 0654 in the plan. Also, the specific protective affected areas shall be prepared and included as part of the State actions that need to be taken are not and Local plans. Such messages should include the appropriate mentioned.
aspects of sheltering, ad hoc respiratory protection (handkerchief over mouth, etc.) thyroid blocking, or evacuation.
II.F.1-The communication plans for emergencies shall include NUREG Not Met Communication plans were not clearly all organizational titles and alternates for both ends of the 0654 stated. The plan did not mention communication links. Each organization shall establish reliable organizational titles and alternates nor primary and backup means of communication for licensees, local did it include a clear demonstration of a and State response organizations. Such systems should be backup communications system.
selected to be compatible with one another. (See NUREG-0654 for detailed requirements)
II.F.2-Each organization shall ensure that a coordinated NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer communication link for fixed and mobile medical support facilities 0654 contains no reference to medical exists. support. This could be due to the fact that there is only a temporary doctor's office on the island.
II.G.1-Each organization shall provide a coordinated periodic (at NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer least annually) dissemination of information to the public 0654 contains no mention of preplanning regarding how they will be notified and what their actions should activities or of dissemination of be in an emergency. This information shall include, but not information on a yearly basis.
necessarily be limited to:
educational information on radiation, contact for additional information, protective measures, and special needs of the handicapped.
C-84
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning StandardlRequirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not in the Plan Met ll.G.2-The public information program shall provide the NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer permanent and transient adult population within the plume 0654 contains no mention of disseminating exposure EPZ an adequate opportunity to become aware of the information to the transient population.
information annually. The programs should include provision for written material that is likely to be available in a residence during an emergency. Updated information shall be disseminated at least annually. Signs or other measures shall also be used to disseminate to any transient population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ, appropriate information that would be helpful if an emergency or accident occurs. Such notices should refer the transient to the telephone directory or other source of local emergency information and guide the visitor to appropriate radio and television frequencies.
lI.G.5-Each organization shall conduct coordinated programs at NUREG Not Met Media training and coordination was not least annually to acquaint news media with the emergency plans, 0654 mentioned in the plan; however, there information concerning radiation, and points of contact for release was some mention of the Joint News of public information in an emergency. Center during the emergency.
ll.H.10-Each organization shall make provisions to inspect, NUREG Not Met There was no discussion of equipment inventory, and operationally check emergency 0654 inspections, inventory, and operability in equipmentrinstruments at least once each calendar quarter and the plan.
after each use.
ll.H.1 1-Each plan shall, in an appendix, include identification of NUREG Not Met The plan did not include an appendix or emergency kits by general category (protective equipment, 0654 a listing of emergency kits.
communications equipment, radiological monitoring equipment and emergency supplies.
11.1-1.12-Each organization shall establish a central point NUREG Not Met The plan did not clearly identify the (preferably associated with the licensee's near-site EOF), for the 0654 required information in regard to field receipt and analysis of all field monitoring data and coordination data reporting and analysis.
of sample media ll.J.10-The organization's plans to implement protective NUREG C-85
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning Standard/Requirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not in the Plan Met measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include: 0654 a) LCP 2.0 a) Met a) Maps showing evacuation routes, evacuation areas, Attchmt. 4 preselected radiological sampling and monitoring points, relocation centers in host areas, and shelter areas.
b) Maps showing population distribution around the nuclear b) A population data map was not b) - b) Not Met facility. This shall also be by evacuation areas (licensees included.
shall also present the information in a sector format).
c)LCP 4.4 c) Met c) Means for notifying all segments of the transient and resident population. 1.2 d) LCP 4.5 d) Met d) Means for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other # 1, pg.3 confinement (State & Local only).
e) Met e) Provisions for the use of radioprotective drugs, particularly for e) LCP 4.2 emergency workers and institutionalized persons within the Attchmt f) The plan mentions public health is 10-mile EPZ who may not be able to evacuate immediately. 10, pg.27 0 Not Met responsible, but there is no discussion f) Method by which decisions by the State Health Department 0- of the decision methodology.
for administering radioprotective drugs to the general population are made during an emergency and the pre-determined conditions under which such drugs may be used by offsite emergency workers.
g) Met g) Means of relocation. g) LCP 2.0 2.5 pg.3 h) Not Met h) The host area is included in the plan h) Relocation centers in host areas which are at least 5 miles but not the reception center location.
and preferably 10 miles beyond the boundaries of the plume i) Not Met h)-
exposure emergency planning zone (see J.12). i) Traffic Capacity during an evacuation I)- j) Met is not discussed in the plan.
i) Projected traffic capacities of evacuation routes under emergency conditions.
j) LCP 2.0 k) Met j) Control of access to evacuated areas and organization 2.3 pg. 2 responsibilities for such control.
k) LCP 2.1 k) Identification and means for dealing with potential 2.1.1 I) Not Met impediments to use of evacuation routes, and contingency. pg. 1 I) Times estimates are not included in
.1. a C-86
Review of Emergency Preparednessat Indian Point and Milistone-DRAFT Planning StandardlRequirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met measures I- the plan I) Time estimates for evacuation of various sectors and distances based on a dynamic analysis for the plume exposure pathway EPZ (See Appendix 4).
ll.J.12-Each organization shall describe the means for NUREG Not Met The plan includes no discussion of the registering and monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers in 0654 functions of a relocation center.
host areas. The personnel and equipment available should be capable of monitoring within about a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers.
lI.K.3.a-Each organization shall make provision for 24 hourlday NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer capability to determine the doses received by emergency 0654 contains no mention of 24-hour personnel involved in any nuclear accident, including volunteers. surveillance of emergency workers.
Each organization shall make provisions for distribution of However, the plan does state that such dosimeters, both self-reading and permanent record devices. workers should not be exposed to more than .4R without a supervisor's approval.
IL.K.4-Each State and local organization shall establish the NUREG LCP 4.2 Not Met The plan mentions the need to call to decision chain for authorizing emergency workers to incur 0654 Attahmt receive new exposure limits but does exposures in excess of the EPA General Public Protective Action achmen not mention or demonstrate the Guides (for emergency workers and lifesaving activities). 1 decision tree for determining new dose
- 9 pg.5 limits.
Il.K.5-Each organization, as appropriate, shall specify action NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer levels for determining the need for decontamination. Shall also 0654 contains no mention of action levels for establish the means for radiological decontamination of decontamination.
emergency personnel wounds, supplies, instruments and equipment, and for waste disposal.
ll.L.1-Each organization shall arrange for local and backup NUREG Not Met There are no hospitals on Fishers hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation 0654 Island, and only a temporary doctor's of radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that office. It is expected that the plan will C-87
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning'Standard/Requirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met persons providing these services are adequately prepared to provide details of backup forms of handle contaminated individuals. medical support.
lI.N.1.a -An exercise is an event that tests the integrated NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer capability and a major portion of the basic elements existing 0654 contains no mention of conducting within emergency preparedness plans and organizations. The exercises.
emergency preparedness exercise shall simulate an emergency that results in offsite radiological releases, which would require response by offsite authorities. Exercises shall be conducted as set forth in NRC and FEMA rules.
lI.N.1.b - An exercise shall include mobilization of State and local NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer personnel and resources adequate to verify the capability to 0654 contains no mention of conducting respond to an accident scenario requiring response. The exercises.
organization shall provide for a Federal and State observerslevaluators. The scenario should be varied from year to year such that all major elements of the plans and preparedness organizations are tested within a five-year period.
Each organization should make provisions to start an exercise between 6:00PM and midnight, and another between midnight and 6:00AM once every six years. Exercises should be conducted under various weather conditions. Some exercises should be unannounced.
ll.N.2.a-Communication Drills. Communications with State/Local NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer governments within the plume exposure pathway EPZ shall be 0654 contains no mention of conducting drills.
tested monthly. Communications with Federal ER organizations and States within the ingestion pathway shall be tested quarterly.
Communications between the nuclear facility, state and local EOC's and field assessment teams shall be tested annually.
Communication drills shall also include the aspect of understanding the content of messages.
lI.N.2.c-Medical Emer encv Drills. A medical emergency drill NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer involving a simulated contaminated individual, which contains 0654 contains no mention of conducting drills.
provisions for participation by the local support services agencies .
C-88
Review of Emergency Preparednessat Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning Standard/Requirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not in the Plan Met shall be conducted annually. The offsite portions of the medical drill may be performed as part of the requires annual exercise.
Il.N.2.d-Radiological Monitoring Drills. Plant environs and NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer radiological monitoring drills (onsite and offsite) shall be 0654 contains no mention of conducting drills.
conducted annually. These drills shall include collection and analysis of all sample media and provisions for communications and record keeping. The state drills need not be at each site.
Where appropriate, local organizations shall participate.
ll.N.3 - Each organization shall describe have exercises are to be NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer carried out to allow free play for decision making and to meet the 0654 contains no mention of conducting following objectives. Pending the development of exercise exercises.
scenarios and exercise evaluation guidance by NRC and FEMA the scenarios for use in exercises and drills shall include but not be limited to the following:
The basic objective of each drill and exercise and appropriate evaluations criteria; The date(s), time period, place(s) and participating organizations; The simulated events; A time schedule of real and simulated initiating events; A narrative summary describing the conduct of the exercises or drills to include such things as simulated casualties, offsite fire department assistance, rescue of personnel, use of protective clothing, deployment of radiological monitoring teams and public information activities; A description of the arrangements for and advance materials to be provided to official observers.
ll.N.4 - Official observers from Federal, State or local NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer governments will observe, evaluate and critique the required 0654 contains no mention of evaluating exercises. A critique shall be scheduled at the conclusion of the exercises.
exercise to evaluate the ability of organizations to respond as C-89
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning StandardlRequirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met called for in the plan. The critique shall be conducted as soon as practicable after the exercise, and a formal evaluation should result from the critique.
II.N.5 - Each organization shall establish means by for evaluating NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer observer and participant comments on areas needing 0654 contains no mention of plan improvement, including emergency plan procedural changes, and assessment or implementing for assigning responsibility for implementing corrective actions. procedures.
Each organization shall establish management control used to ensure that corrective actions are implemented.
11.0.1 - Each organization shall assure the training of appropriate NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer individuals: 0654 contains no mention of a training Each facility to which the plant applies shall provide site specific program.
ER training for those offsite emergency organizations who may be called upon to provide assistance in the event of an emergency.
Each offsite response organization shall participate in and receive training. Where mutual aid agreements exist between local agencies such as fire, police, and ambulance rescue, the training shall also be offered to the other departments who are members of the mutual aid district.
11.0.4 - Each organization shall establish a training program for NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer instructing and qualifying personnel who will implement 0654 contains no mention of a training radiological ER plans. The specialized initial training and periodic program.
retraining programs shall be provided in the following categories:
11.0.4.a - Directors or coordinators of the response organization NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer 0654 contains no mention of a training program.
11.0.4.d - Police, security, and fire fighting personnel NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer 0654 contains no mention of a training C.90
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning Standard/Requirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met program.
11.0.4.f - First aid and rescue personnel. NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer 0654 contains no mention of a training program.
11.0.4.g - Local support services personnel including Civil NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer Defense/ Emergency Service personnel. 0654 contains no mention of a training program.
11.0.4.h - Medical support personnel. NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer 0654 contains no mention of a training program.
1l.0.4.j - Personnel responsible for transmission of emergency NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer information and instructions. 0654 contains no mention of a training program.
11.0.5 - Each organization shall provide for the initial and annual NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer retraining of personnel with emergency response responsibilities. 0654 contains no mention of a training program.
II.P.1 - Each organization shall provide for the training of NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer individual's responsible for the planning effort. 0654 contains no mention of a training program.
ll.P.3 - Each organization shall designate an Emergency NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer Planning Coordinator with responsibility for the development and 0654 contains no mention of a Planning updating of emergency plans and coordination of these plans Coordinator.
with other response organizations.
Il.P.4 - Each organization shall update its plan and agreements NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer as needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis. 0654 contains no mention of plan update.
The update shall take into account changes identified by drills and exercises.
C.91
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning Standard/Requirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met II.P.5 - The emergency response plans and approved changes to NUREG Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer the plans shall be forwarded to tall organizations and appropriate 0654 contains no discussion of plan individuals with responsibility for implementation of the plans. distribution.
Revised pages shall be dated and marked to show where changes have been made.
ll.P.7 - Each plan shall contain as an appendix listing by title, NUREG Not Met The design of the plan did not include procedures requires to implement the plan. The listing shall 0654 appendices.
include the sections of the plan to be implemented by each procedure.
ll.P.8 - Each plan shall contain a specific table of contents. Plans NUREG Table of Met The plan meets the requirement; submitted for review should be a cross-referenced to these 0654 Contents however, the page numbering system is criteria. not conducive to quick referencing.
II.P.10 - Each organization shall provide for updating telephone NUREG Not Met There are no critical phone numbers numbers in emergency procedures at least quarterly. 0654 . listed in the plan. Also, there Is no discussion of a system for updating the phone numbers.
Evacuation (urgent removal of persons/animals) and Sheltering EPA 400 Not Met Protective actions for civilians are not (supplemented by bathing and changing of clothes) to protect the addressed in the plan provided.
public from exposure to direct radiation and inhalation from 1-3 airborne plume. 2.3.1 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 Appendix E Protective action for milk supply. EPA 400 Met The plan discusses taking protective 1-3 & App action for dairy cows in order to protect D their milk.
C-92
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning StandardlRequirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met DHHS FDA Vol. 47.
- 205 FDA 82-8196 Relocation and decontamination for protection against whole EPA 400 Not Met The process for relocation and body dose (external exposure) due to deposited material and 1.4 decontamination protection is not from inhalation of any resuspended radioactive particulate. mentioned in the plan provided.
Appendix E Restrictions on the use of contaminated food and water. EPA 400 Not Met The plan does not mention what should 1-5 be done with contaminated food and 1-5 water.
Ch.3,Appd xD DHHS FDA Vol. 47,
- 205 FDA 82-8196 Notification and preliminary evaluation of the conditions and Not Met The plan does not mention analysis of location of the incident. EPA 400 an event. The plan does discuss the 1.4 collection of data, but not the reporting and analysis of the data.
C-93
Review of Emergency Preparednessat Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning Standard/Requirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met Cost analysis and radiological decontamination data to form a EPA 400 Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer basis for radiation protection decisions and for recovery. 14 (1-7) contains no mention of a decision theory for protective actions and recovery.
Appendix C Levels of exposure to radiation identified which should initiate EPA 400 Not Met The plan identifies only the level of protective action. 21 exposure for emergency workers; it doe
(.12-1)not include the levels of exposure for the public.
All PAG's should be consistent for all of the population. EPA 400 Not Met Public protection is not discussed in the 2.1 (2-2) plan.
Estimate of total doses received prior to relocation of population. EPA 400 Not Met Population relocation is not referred to 2.1.3 (2-3) in the plan.
Mechanism for obtaining detailed content of the plume. EPA 400 Not Met A mechanism for gathering information about the plume is not identified in the 2.2 (24) plan.
Levels of PPE identified for radiological workers. EPA 400 Not Met The plan only mentions equipment for 2.5 (2-9) measuring dose. All other equipment is not discussed in the plan.
Coordination and recommendations based on plant conditions, Not Met Plume information is not clearly for early evacuations and/or sheltering in pre-designated areas. identified in the plan.
Early estimates of the various components of projected doses to EPA 400 the population at the site area boundary as well as more distant 4.1 (4-1) locations. Estimated time frames as soon as relevant source or release data becomes available.
C-94
Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone-DRAFT Planning Standard/Requirement Source Where Requirement Comments Document Addressed Met or Not In the Plan Met Establishment of Exposure Patterns using atmospheric transports EPA 400 Not Met Plume information is not clearly and field teams including plume tracking. 5.2.2 (5-4) identified in the plan.
Air sampling techniques/flow rates/ time in plume/ analysis EPA 400 Not Met Plume information is not clearly information. 5.3 identified in the plan.
Procedures for calculating dose conversion factors and derived EPA 400 Not Met Plume information is not clearly response levels. 5.4; 5.6 identified in the plan.
Documentation of sequence of events. EPA 400 Not Met The method for documenting the 7.1.3 (7-4) sequence of events is not clear.
Recommendations for surface contamination limits. EPA 400 Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer 7.6.3 contains no mention of surface containment limits.
7.6.1 Dosemetric models, agricultural transport models, dietary intake EPA 400 Not Met The plan provided to the reviewer and other calculations relating to potential dose. 7.6.2 contains no mention of any type of modeling.
7.4 7.3 Appendix B C.95
Millstone Community Cancer Victims Personally Known
- 1. Joseph H. Besade Fifth Ave. Waterford worker/community Metastatic Lung Cancer Deceased/Aug. 16, 2003 Age 66
- 2. Male Daniels Ave. Waterford community Brain cancer Deceased/ 1980?
Age 50?
- 3. Male Third Ave. Waterford worker/community Brain cancer Deceased/year?
Age 35?
- 4. Male / Fifth Ave. Waterford community Age 65 diagnosed w/Lung cancer/ survivor ....... 2003 Fall Diagnosed w/ Brain Cancer /survivor
- 5. Male/Doctor practice was located on Main St. Niantic community/1970' &80's Blood cancer/unknown type status unknown/ 1996?1997?
Age 70?
- 6. Male Flanders Road/Rt. 161 Niantic community Throat cancer Deceased! June 22, 2003 Age 72
- 7. Male 33 Roxbury Road Niantic community/parent of #8.
Metastatic Liver cancer Deceased! 1979?
Age 60?
- 8. Male 33 Roxbury Road Niantic 20 yr.worker/community Brain tumor diagnosed 1986/29 years of age then. Survivor/disabled Current age 48 (note: this begins the NU Unit I maintenance dept. )(personnel that handled contaminated waste) where three people developed brain cancer within the same timeframe. NU abruptly closed this department and dismissed the employees in Jan. 1994) NU had them to sign off to not file suit against them (NU offered and paid S for sign off) to #8, 9, + 10
- 9. Male unknown address worker/community Brain cancer Deceased / 1998?
Age between 30 and 40
- 10. Female Shennecossett Road Groton worker/community Brain cancer/diagnosed 1985 Deceased/1997
- 11. Female Miss Vans Court Waterford Community Leukemia Deceased/1995 Age 56
- 12. Male Tenth Ave. Waterford Community Blood cancer/Type? Deceased/1976?
Age 18
- 13. Male Willets Ave. Waterford Community Brain cancer Deceased/1982
Age 30?
- 14. Male Oswegatchie Hills Road Niantic worker/community cancer? unknown type Deceased/2000 Age 70?
- 15. Male Unknown address/Professor @Three Rivers community Brain cancer c. college Deceased/2004 Age 30 something
- 16. Male Niantic River Road Waterford community Brain Cancer Deceased/I981 Age 45? Taught Science at Waterford High
- 17. Male Niles Hill Road Waterford carpenter worker/community Lymphoma Survivor Age 30 something @ diagnosis 1997?
- 18. Male Monroe Street Waterford community Lymphoma Deceased/I 986? 1987?
Age 50 something
- 19. Female Monroe Street Waterford community LymphomaDeceased/1986? 1987?
Age unknown #18's mother-in-law
- 20. Female/child Mullen Hill Road Waterford community/father was worker Bone cancer Leg amputated/1971 or so? Survivor Age 11?
- 21. Male/teen unknown address/Sunset Dr. Waterford Tumors in Spinal column Deceased /1985 Age 19
- 22. Male Tiffany Ave. Waterford community pancreatic/liver cancer? Not real sure though Deceased /1987 Age 48?/50?
- 23. Female Lloyd Road Waterford community Liver cancer Deceased /1980 Age 25?
- 24. Male Shore Road Waterford community Liver cancer? Deceased /1977 Age 50 something? (Parent to #25)
- 25. Male Shore Road Waterford carpenter worker/community Brain cancer (son of #24) Deceased / Jan. 1987 Age 31
- 26. Female (mother of # 24) Roselund Hill Uncasville community(summered on Jordan Cove)w/24&25 Brain cancer Deceased/i986 Age 70?
- 27. Male child Fifth Ave Waterford community leukemia Status unknown
Age of diagnosis 2 or 3 years
- 28. Female child Fifth Ave Waterford community spinal tumors (attended Southwest School) Deceased /19757
- 29. Female Shore Road Waterford community Breast Cancer/Double mastectomy Survivor Age: 25?
- 30. Female 15 Lamphere Road Waterford community Leukemia Deceased / 1979? 1980?
Age 18?
- 31. Female Gay Hill Road Uncasville community pancreatic cancer Deceased/ 1982?
Age 60?
- 32. Female Gay Hill Road, Uncasville community Ovarian cancer/ Deceased/I 995? unknown onset of disease maybe 1993 Age 35
- 33. Male/ Vauxhall Steet ext. Waterford community Lung cancer/deceased/2000 Age 65?
- 34. Female/ unknown location Wtfd./NL community Breast cancer/ relative of above #33 Deceased/ 2001 Age unknown ? 60 guessing
- 35. Female/ Niantic community Breast cancer/ Deceased/ 2000? Or 1999?
Age 70?
- 36. Male/ Great Neck Road, Waterford community/ nursery farmer Cancer origin unkown? Deceased July 2004 Age 71
- 36. Male/ George Street Waterford/ then Spithead Road where he died this spring 2004/ Seaside Regional DMRUDirector of Camp Harkness Age 54
- 37. Female/ Spithead Road Waterford community Age 65? Breast cancer / survivor
- 38. Male/ husband of # 37 Age 65? (Both relocated to Florida, both were recently diagnosed) Lymphoma
- 39. Female/ The Strand, Waterford community Breast cancer/ 1970's or early 80's survivor (another relocated to Florida)
- 40. Female/ a street off Oswegatchie Road, Waterford community (sister of my dad's neighbor)
Age 40? Breast Cancer/ Deceased 1985 or so? Can't exactly remember the date
- 41. Female/ Niantic River Road Waterford community/ worked in downtown Niantic owned a children's clothing store 1970's through 1989 or so?
Age 50? Breast Cancer...good friend of Carols Deceased/1998? Not real sure on this date of death but close
- 42. Female/teen 17 at onset Rope Ferry Road, Waterford community/student Bone cancer/leg amputated 1979? Survivor
- 43. Male/ Logger Hill/Rope Ferry Road Waterford/ then Niantic community Age 60? Lung Cancer / Deceased 2000
- 44. Male/ Quaker Hill Waterford Lung Cancer/ Age 58? Deceased 1990?
- 45. Male/ Clark Lane Waterford community Age 45...diagnosed w/leukemia age 30 something survivor
- 46. Male/Clark Lane Waterford community Age unkown maybe 50 something.....Father to f#45. Deceased / latel980's/early 90's Cancer type unknown
- 47. Female/ Dainels Avenue Waterford community (sister of Dad's neighbor same family as listed in 40.)
Breast Cancer/ Deceased 2003 less than a month before Joe.
- 48. Female/ Niantic River Road Waterford community Cancer type can't remember ....Deceased 1980's Mother in law to the # 49
- 49. Female/ Niantic River Road (NOT THE SAME HOUSE BUT THE SAME FAMILY)
Breast Cancer real aggressive type inflammatory 1990 survivor Age 35?
- 50. Female/ Gallup Lane Waterford community/wife of L&M Hospital. President Breast cancer 1975 Deceased same yr.
Age 35?
- 51. Female/ Oswegatchie Waterford community/wife of dentist Breast cancer 1974 1975? Deceased same yr.
Age 35?
Indirectly Acquainted
- 52. Female Seabreeze Drive Waterford Breast Cancer Deceased 2003 Age 83
- 53. Male, Seabreeze Drive Waterford Colon Cancer Deceased 2001
- 54. Male Seabreeze Drive Waterford Liver Cancer Deceased 2003
- 55. Female Seabreeze Drive Waterford Breast Cancer 2000 Survivor
- 56. Female Crescent Beach East Lyme Age 10 at exposure, now 26 Thyroid cancer survivor
- 57. Female Niantic Thyroid Cancer 2000 (?)
- 58. Female Niantic Breast cancer (2000?)
- 59. Female Groton Long Point Breast Cancer 1999 Survivor
- 60. Female Waterford Ovarian Cancer, high school sophomore, survivor
- 61. Female Shore Road Waterford Cancer of unknown origin survivor
- 62. Female Mystic Breast cancer 50s survivor
- 63. Female Mystic Age 3 Cancer of unknown type
- 64. Male Niantic Brain cancer (2002?)
- 65. Male Waterford School age childhood leukemia 2003
- 66. Niantic - Cluster of cancer cases on Bluff during 1990s 61S37. Female Black Point Niantic Cancer of unknown type (2003?)
After you are introduced:
Thank you.
Good afternoon. (Good evening.)
My name is Steve Scace.
I am Director of Nuclear Safety and Licensing at Dominion's Millstone Power Station and have been working in the nuclear industry for the last 34 years.
I would like to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Town of Waterford for providing another opportunity for the public to speak on this important issue.
As you know, the Millstone Power Station is seeking to renew the operating licenses for it's two operating reactors, Unit 2 and Unit 3, for 20 additional years.
As part of this rigorous process, we have conducted a study, which took place over a period of almost two years, analyzing potential environmental impacts associated with the additional years of operation.
At the Environmental Scoping Public Meeting last May, I related how Dominion's License Renewal Team had spent many hours carefully preparing the Environmental Report.
In fact, we spent thousands of hours collecting and analyzing the data. This data not only included site-specific issues but also compared national and worldwide industry knowledge and experience. Following this submission, hundreds of additional hours have been spent supporting the NRC's detailed review of the report to ensure that Millstone's continued operation will provide Connecticut and New 143
England with safe, reliable and environmentally responsible power well into this century.
The NRC's comprehensive evaluation of the environmental issues associated with license renewal for the site has resulted in the draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement, which is the subject of this meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the NRC review team for their hard work. Dominion recognizes the complexity of the issues that were evaluated, and believes that the team did a very good job on the review.
As you know, Millstone is a vital component of New England's energy infrastructure and provides the equivalent of roughly 48 percent of Connecticut's electricity, which is enough to meet the needs of more than one million homes and businesses, without generating greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. As the electricity demands of New England and Connecticut grow in the coming years, Millstone will clearly play an important role in meeting those needs.
The men and women of Millstone strongly believe in enhancing the quality of life in Southeastern Connecticut through volunteerism, public service and our commitment to protecting the environment. Whether this participation is through our involvement in the United Way, or working in a local park or building a playground for a school in need, we are involved in our community. We view this participation as part of our responsibility to the communities in which we live and work.
2-13
Because we raise our families in these communities, we understand the importance of operating Millstone in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Ensuring that Millstone's continued operation meets or exceeds the NRC's stringent guidelines for operations is important to us not only as employees but as citizens and neighbors in our communities as well.
Dominion has long been recognized as a leader in the nuclear industry and each day we maintain our commitment to operating Millstone safely, reliably and economically.
After carefully weighing all the factors associated with renewal of the Millstone Unit 2 and Unit 3 operating licenses, we are confident that Millstone will continue to play an important role in providing Connecticut and New England with safe, reliable and environmentally-responsible energy for many years to come.
Thank you for your time and good day (night.)
Gail Merrill 227 Silvermine Road New Canaan, CT. 06840 January 11, 2005 Nuclear Regulatory Commission This Is My Environmental Impact Statement'Regarding the Question of License Renewal of the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units.
My statement is in support of Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone. I have been impacted by breast cancer, at age 48. My tumor is not genetic, even though my mother died of breast cancer; she was diagnosed at age
- 68. She lived approximately 12 miles downwind of Millstone, on Long Island,NY. I am here today to protect my health and safety. I do not want to die.
I have been appalled by the horrific number of young women with breast cancer in Connecticut. In my daily conversations I hear of women 'in their 30's with double mastectomies, who are getting the breast cancer right back again. I hear of women in their 40's and 50's dying of breast cancer.
Their families and friends tell me, Hospice workers tell me, doctors and nurses are telling me. But, many are shocked to learn that we now have 14 and 15 year old girls with breast cancer, as reported by our Connecticut Tumor Registry. As a neighbor said to me: 'who's next" ?
These women live in many different towns. I began'to investigate.
According to our government's National Cancer Institute's Atlas of Cancer Mortality, the most recent map 1950-1994, the northeast has the greatest breast cancer mortality. What-makes us different? The northeast has the greatest concentration of nuclear facilities, according to the map from our government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scientists at Radiation and Public Health Project have statistically proved and published in a book "The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors", that women who live within 100 miles of a nuclear reactor have the greatest risk of dying- of breast cancer. I live well within 100 miles of 2 nuclear power-plants. .1am very frightened.
Additionally, Radiation and Public Health Project scientists have documented cancer-causing Strontium-90, found only in atomic bomb explosions and nuclear reactor operations, in discarded baby teeth. In
Connecticut, the highest Sr-90 levels were found near nuclear plants and in children with cancer. This is documented in a report: " Risks of Cancer and Other Diseases From the Operation of Millstone Nuclear Plant" by Joseph Mangano,MPH,MBA, dated August 5, 2004. He has published 20 articles in professional medical journals on health risks of radiation and he is the author of "Low-Level Radiation and Immune Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy'.
I understand New London county has the highest cancer rate for 12 different cancers in the state of Connecticut, according to our Connecticut Tumor Registr's iCancer Incidence in Connecticut Counties, 1995-1999",
published in January 2004. Millstone Nuclear Power Plant is in New London county and the towns closest to it have the highest cancer rates.
Ernest Sternglass, Professor Emeritus of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, documented in a 7 page report, dated August 8, 2004, his opposition to the renewal of Millstone 2 and 3 licenses. He has a 40 year history of documenting the effects of low-level environmental radiation on human health and development, produced by reactor releases. He has testified on this subject, as an expert.
Too many of us have cancers, in too many towns in Connecticut.
Too many of us are downwind of the cancer causing emissions.
You need to close Millstone Nuclear Power Plant. Protect us.
We, the public, have a right to be safe. We want to livel Gail Merrill
Northeast has Greatest Breast Cancer Mortality National Cancer Institute's Atlas of Cancer Mortality Victims As Young As 14 Years Old Connecticut Tumor Registry The majority of breast cancer is environmentally caused, not genetic, and most tumors are estrogen dependent. Cancer prevention needs to be the top priority, even though it is not as profitable as cancer treatment to big business.
To try and prevent breast cancer there are some steps you can take to help yourself be safe. Do not use pesticides because these pseudo estrogens can trigger abnormal cell division in the breast. Avoid animal fat in meat and dairy; this fat contains high levels of pesticides, pollutants and hormones. Eat organic fruits and vegetables that are pesticide free and deep sea fish that are free of chemical carcirTogens and-pseudo-estrogens. Use organic, chemical free, cleaning products in your home and also use a reverse osmdsis'water filtration system to'take out chemicals and nuclear emissions. Estrogen replacement therapy is an avoidable cause of breast cancer. To educate yourself further, please read "The Breast Cancer Prevention Program" by Dr. Samuel Epstein, which is the source for the above information. He is a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. preventcancer.com The above risk factors are all across the country. What makes us different? Look at the US Breast Cancer Mortality Map from the National Institute of Health. The northeast has the greatest breast cancer mortality in the country. Compare this to the concentration of nuclear reactors in the northeast, from the NRC map. Additionally, go to radiation.org Research documents that women living within 100 miles of a nuclear reactor are at the greatest risk of dying of breast cancer. Their nationwide "Tooth Fairy Project" documents radioactive Srontium-90 emitted from nuclear reactors In our baby teeth, transferred from mother to fetus during pregnancy. This is linked to cancers.
Microbiologist Robert Young, Ph.D., D.Sc. author of "Sick and Tired" explains how the over acidification of the body can increase the risk for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, weight gain and other illness.
Thermal imaging can detect breast cancer up to 10 years before a mammogram without the use of radiation. artemisthermalimaging.com 1,Gail Merrill, am surviving non genetic breast cancer. My mother died of breast cancer. I live 25 miles downwind from a nuclear reactor.
.FROMP :Judi & Lou Fr-iecdman FAi< N~O. :EG -9 -- 2 Jan. 0? 2005 02: 37Ptl P2 PEOPLE'S ACTION FOR CLEAN ENERGY, INC.
A WA-p1v sfOrf)pbt*cAfth oMar*4P 101 Lswton noad, Canton, Connectimct 0801 9.2209 (860) 693-4813, (680) B93-4664; Fax (860) 693-2822; wwwpace-c anenargy.org
- PAICE AAdsa.:
JANUARY 11, 2005 RE-LICENSING OF MILLSTONE HEARING EvNC~ DLnd'b D SUBMITTED BY CYNTHIA WILLAUER (official PACE southwest Connecticut radiation monitor)
Mer Coolk Ar&XmrAcW~si PACE, PEOPLE'S ACTION FOR CLEAN ENERGY, A CONNECTICUT STATE ORGANI7ATIOS SINCE Ro"Irnwv sofyte 1974 REPRESENTING 2400 CONSTITUENT HOUSEHOLDS, STRONGLY AND ADAMENTLY Entft"eMVi) EA&7SaMcr~ OPPOSES THE RE-LICENSING OF MILLSTONE.
Esrui w~etwa'b OUJR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MEMBERS AND WediCfran SUPPPORTERS ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED Nawc ttxsrd ABOUT TERRORISM. THE SPENT FUEL POOLS EMWAssweiur. AT NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED. IN FACT, WE VIEW NUCLEAR Ajax KIM P.I.
POWER PLANTS AS WEAPONS OF MASS O~kW~Mama 4R~~ DESTRUCTION ONLY WAITING FOR TERORISTS o,,ja, r~tA, Px.L TO DETONATE THEM. TO FURTHER EthembCrpycAIS~ Mes UNDERSTAND THE REALITY OF THIS E164ud Snoslee, MDi SCENARIO, PACE INIWTES THE NRC QMW Cffvc ~tatu w REPRIESENTATIS HERE TO JOIN US ON FEBRUARY 8H IN WEST HARTFORD AT ST.
JOSEPH'S COLLEGE TO VIEW TIlE FX CAHBLE FACE Officaue: CHANNEL FEATURE FILM TITLED Pruideid oIVIELTDOWN". THIS REALISTIC PORTRAYAL Cainhn2aiA Legjetuyo OF TIHE INILTRATION OF TERRORISTS INTO A Cw~t'person NUCLEAR PUNT IS CHILLING AND RELEVANT.
Jrig rrdman Vi~ce Chakpaw=
Eaitxut Bsclunsi IN ADDITION, WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED vice chn'tpersqi 4cM oende¶,
ABOUT THE CONTWNOUS 1RELEASE OF RADIO-
%Vicoahiper"a Kan Owpn Breaaswei Dot=w Grark mntedp ydeo&a,&vwv sykir
nFOM :Judi 2. Lc-,A F'riednen FAX Nf. : E0-G9_3-2ea2:
Ja4n. 0? 2005 02:37[~1 P3 PAGli 2 ACTIVE ISOTOPES THAT ARE EMITTED FROM THESE PLANTS. THESE EMISSIONS HAVE FALLEN ON CONNECTICUT 8011 .ND WAER AND HAVE BEEN EMITTED INTO THE AIR FOR YEARS. THE EFFECTS OF RADIATION ARE CUMULATIVE.
SINCE FEW STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE ON THE CANCER RATES AROUND TIlE PLANTS, WE ONLY NEED TO USE OUR REASONING POWERS TO UNDERSTAND THAT T1IS RADIATON IS HARMFUL AND THE DEGREE OF HARM VARIES FROM INDIVIDUAL TO NIVIDUAL. WE DO KNOW T1HAT CHILDREN AND FETUSES ARE EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO THESE LONG-LIVED TERRIBLE POISONS.
WE ARE ALSO WORRIED ABOUT A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. OLD MACHINES ARE FALLIBLE AS ARE THE HUMAN J3ELNGS WHO RUN THEM. WE ONLY NEED TO LOOK AT DAVTS-BESSE IN 01HIO TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF WIIAT MAV OCCUIt WIT]OUT EVEN THE AWARENESS OF NUCLEAR PLANT OPERATORS.
IN ADDITION, WE FIND THE CENTRALIZATION THAT TIS KIND OF ENERGY REPRESENTS TO BE UNWISE. OUR CENTRALIZED GRID IS BRITLE, VULNERABLE TO B3LACKOUTS AND TERRORISM. DECENTRALIZED ENERGY SUB-STATIONS USING RENEWABLE ENERGY WOULD HELP TO MAKE UJS SAVER.
LASTLV, CONTINOUS OPERATION OF NTCLEAR POWER PLANTS CREATES MORE WASTE. EVEN IF WE SEND WASTES TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN (A SEISMIC AREA) MORE WASTES WILL BE CREATED IN CONNECTICUT THAT WILL REMAIN TO HUIRT u'S OR TO TEMPT TERRORISTS.
WE URGE YOU NOT TO RE-LICENSE MILLSTONE. RE-LI CENSING IS A RECWE FOR DISASTER.
JUD[ FRIEDMAN-CHAIR
Marie Domenici, 330 Oldfield Court, Mattituck, NY 11952 January 11, 2005 TO: NRC FROM: Marie Domenici RE: Renewal of Millstone Units 2 & 3 I don't profess to have any specialized credentials as it relates to this subject matter. I come here today as a citizen wvho has concerns about what I hear and read as it relates to the Millstone Power Plant and its impact on our environment. Therefore, the following are my thoughts, concerns and reasons for opposing this licensing renewal:
- Lack of notification to Long Island residents - Currently, there are no plans in place to notify LI in the event of a nuclear accident. Legislation should mandate a 50 mile radius notification system
- Lack of an evacuation plan - There is no evacuation plan that will ever safely evacuate Long Island in the event of a nuclear accident. Shoreham never went on line for just this reason
- Environmental Exposure to Radiation, ENIF and cancer causing agents - In the event of a nuclear accident, the Tri-State area would be devastated
- Nuclear Power Plants are targets for terrorists - This does not require an explanation In reading the "draft" on your web site, I have grave concerns relating to 92 environmental issues identified by "the staff." Let me just say, it only takes 1 catastrophic event whether by nuclear accident or a terrorist attack to devastate this region. So, to have 92 environmental issues whether small or great are 92 issues too many.
Not only do we have to be concerned about a "nuclear" accident or attack, but we also have no place to put the "spent fuel" and this poses an entirely whole set of other problems. Long Island has been targeted by the EPA to use the Long Island Sound as a dump site for Connecticut's dredge waste. The Sound is an estuary and the EPA is the guardian of this estuary and I find it unthinkable that the EPA has said little if any environmental effects would be felt by dumping dredge in the Sound. If you can't refine the waste and turn it into energy, what makes anyone think it's OK to dump it in the Sound or any waterway?
1
Marie Domenici, 330 Oldfield Court, Mattituck, NY 11952 The mere fact Millstone does not have to notify its Long Island neighbors in the event of an accident, prompts me to ask "who's minding this store?" Is it not the role of the NRC to ensure the health and well being of all people OR does the NRC have concern for only a chosen few? Environmental decisions such as this can not always be made with Political Agendas, Shareholders or big business in mind. It can't always be about profit!!
As a resident of Long Island, I resent the lack of concern by the NRC toward its Long Island neighbors and as a citizen of this plant, I have grave concerns the NRCs vision does not have the very best interest for ALL people. Can anyone from the NRC tell me where do I take my family to live after a nuclear event? What place will be safe?
To quote from the NRC's web site: NRC'sprinary m11issiot is to protect public healthI andsafety and the environmentfront the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors, materials, and .nastefacilities. Please re-read your mission statement from time to time and remember why you are in business in the first place and who you are supposed to be protecting.
Knowing the right thing to do in this case should not mean having to legislate or mandate laws. Doing the right thing should not hinge on risk assessment, as the risks are too high.
I think we all know what the right thing to do in this case. I want to go on record as opposing the issuance of this license!
Signed.... A Concerned Citizen!
hoac (LAULW 2
Radiation and Public Health Project Joseph J. Mangano, MPH MBA, National Coordinator 912 Mill Grove Drive Norristown PA 19403 odiejoeeaol.com 610-666-2985 www.radiation.org Directors Jay M. Gould, PhD Jane Gould, MA Ernest J.Sternglass, PhD Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA William McDennell, MA Embargoed tlail 1:30 p.m. EST, January 11, 2005 Contact Joseph Mangano 610-666-2985 LOCAL HEALTH DECLINES WHEN MILLSTONE OPENS, IMPROVES AFTER CLOSING New London County's cancer incidence rate has steadily risen since the startup of the Millstone nuclear plant, according to data presented today at a federal hearing to extend the plant's license.
In the 1950s and 1960s, cancer incidence in New London was 8% below the state rate. After Millstone began operations in 1970, the local rate rose steadily until it reached a level 6%
ABOVE the state rate in the late 1990s. New London's current cancer rate is the highest of all eight counties. Data are taken from the state tumor registry.
"New London has been transformed from a low-cancer to a high-cancer county after Millstone began operating," states Joseph Mangano, National Coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project research group who analyzed the data. Mangano calculates thar of the over 1300 New London residents diagnosed with cancer each year, nearly 200 can be considered in excess of what would be expected if earlier levels had been maintained.
In addition, Mangano identified large declines in deaths to local infants under one year when Millstone was closed for mechanical problems. The number of deaths plunged from 136 to 105 from 1994-95 (when Millstone was operating) to 1996-97 (when Millstone was closed) in the five closest downwind Connecticut/Rhode Island counties. Deaths to local children age 1-9 (excluding accidents, homicide, and suicide) also plunged from 25 to 15 during that time, only to rise when Millstone restarted.
Of all 72 U.S. nuclear plants, Millstone had the 3rd highest airborne emissions since 1970, more than doubling official releases from Three Mile Island during the 1979 accident. Millstone's aging reactors have operated 91% of the time since 2000, compared to just 66% before 1994.
Concerned citizens believe that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should take these criteria, along with adverse public health trends, into consideration when deciding whether to extend Millstone's current 40-year license for an additional 20 years. To date, the NRC has approved all 30 applications for license extensions, and is currently considering at least 30 additional ones (there are 103 operating reactors in the U.S.).
Advisory Board Research Associates Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH William Reid, MD Samuel S.Epstein, MD Agnes Reynolds, RN David Friedson, Applica Inc. Janette Sherman, MD John Gofinan, MD, PhD Susanne Saltzman, MD 1
RISKS OF CANCER AND OTHER DISEASES FROM THE OPERATION OF THE MILLSTONE NUCLEAR PLANT Joseph J. Mangano, MPH MBA National Coordinator Radiation and Public Health Project August 5, 2004 I am Joseph Mangano, National Coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a non profit professional research organization based in New York City. I have served RPHP as a research associate from 1989-2000, and as National Coordinator ever since. My training includes a master's degree in public health from the University of North Carolina (1978) and a master's degree in business administration from Fordham University (1985). I have published 20 articles in professional medical journals on health risks of radiation, and am the author of Low-Level Radiation and Immune Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy (Lewis Publishers, 1998).
The information I am presenting here is taken from official government sources, which are documented. In addition, I am offering results from the study of radioactive Strontium-90 in baby teeth that RPHP has been conducting since 1998.
A summary of the findings on health risks from Millstone to the local population is as follows:
Risk of a Catastrophic Meltdown. and Health Consequences
- Millstone is among the oldest U.S. plants. Millstone Units 2 and 3 began operations in 1975 and 1986; the now-closed Millstone 1 operated from 1970 to 1995. No U.S.
reactor has ever operated more than 35 years, raising concerns about aging parts potentially failing and causing a meltdown.
- Before 1995, Millstone 2/3 operated 66% of the time, well below the U.S. average of 75%. Closings frequently occurred due to mechanical problems. Since January 1, 2001, the Millstone average rose to 91%, again raising the issue of whether aging parts are being pushed past their safe-limits and risking a catastrophic meltdown.
- The average time per reactor spent by federal regulators performing inspections fell 30% from 1996 to 2002.
- If the core of one of Millstone's two operating reactors were to experience a meltdown, it would cause at least 41,000 immediate deaths from and 48,000 immediate cases of acute radiation sickness, along with 71,000 eventual cancer deaths in the local area.
Radioactivity Routinely Produced l
- Large amounts of highly radioactive waste have accumulated at Millstone, and any possibility of moving it permanently to Yucca Mountain, Nevada is at least seven years in the future, if ever.
- From 1970-93, Millstone emitted the 3 rd greatest amounts of airborne radioactivity among the 72 operating U.S. plants. The total of about 32 curies is more than twice the amount emitted during the Three Mile Island accident, suggesting the local populations may be at an increased risk of cancer.
High and Rising Childhood and Adult Cancer Rates Near Millstone and Indian Point
- From the late 1960s to the late 1990s, the rate of cancer diagnosed in Connecticut children under age five rose 72%.
- In the period 1971-84 after the Millstone plant opened, cancer incidence and mortality age 0-19 in New London County rose 17% and 25% faster than the state rate.
- In these same 14 years, cancer incidence and mortality in New London county rose faster than the state for leukemia, female breast, thyroid, and bone/joint cancer, all of which are known to be sensitive to radiation. Excess breast cancer increases occurred for young, middle-aged, and elderly women.
- In the late 1990s, the highest rates of total cancers and breast cancer in New London County are in those towns closest to Millstone.
Improvements in Health After Millstone Shutdown In the winter of 1995-96, revelations of shoddy safety practices prompted the shutdown of the Connecticut Yankee and all three Millstone reactors. Connecticut Yankee and Millstone I were closed permanently, and Millstone 2/3 reopened in the summers of 1999 and 1998, respectively. During the period that no reactor operated in Connecticut (1996-97), various improvements in local health were observed:
- Mortality in infants under 1 year rate fell 18.1% in the five Connecticut and Rhode Island counties downwind from the reactors, dropping from 136 to 105 deaths.
- The death rate in children age 1-9 fell 39.1%, dropping from 25 to 15 deaths.
- While Millstone 2 and 3 operated part of the time in 1998-99, these mortality levels remained low. But they rose in 2000-01, when the reactors returned to full power.
Tooth Studv Results Only 37 baby teeth have been collected from Connecticut, which is too few to draw conclusions from. However, preliminary results document several matters of concern:
- 1. Connecticut had an average Sr-90 level higher than each of the six other states that contributed at least 130 teeth; only Pennsylvania had an average equal to Connecticut.
2
- 2. From 1985-88 to 1993-96, average Sr-90 levels in Connecticut baby teeth more than doubled.
- 3. Average Sr-90 levels in 5 baby teeth from Connecticut children with cancer are nearly double that of teeth from children without cancer.
The above results suggest that current reactor emissions - not old fallout from Nevada bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s - account for a substantial proportion of radioactivity in the bodies of local children.
3
THREATS POSED BY NUCLEAR REACTORS TO CONNECTICUT Millstone Unit 1 in Waterford started up in 1970 and closed at the end of 1995).
Millstone Units 2 and 3 began operations in 1975 and 1986, respectively. The oldest U.S. reactor is Oyster Creek in New Jersey, which started in 1969.
A. Types of Reactor Emissions Posing Health Threats There are four types of public health risk posed by nuclear plants like Millstone:
- 1. Meltdown After Terrorist Attack.
Health concerns about nuclear reactors rose after September 11, 2001, especially those near large population centers. There has been a prolonged debate about the vulnerability of reactors to a terrorist strike, and the horrifying health consequences that would follow.
In 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimated the casualties after a reactor core meltdown. (1) The estimates for Millstone 2/3 wvere 41,000 rapid deaths from radiation poisoning, 48,000 rapid cases of radiation poisoning and 71,000 eventual cancer deaths.
These figures should be seen as conservative because they only consider
- a core meltdown, not one in the waste pools where the majority of radioactivity exists
- persons only living within 30 miles of the reactor
- 1980 population figures, which have risen since Because Millstone is just 100 miles to the northeast of New York City, the most densely populated area in the U.S., and 75 miles southwest of Boston, particular concern should be raised about the threat of a terrorist attack against the plant.
- 2. Meltdown After Mechanical Failure.
A terrorist attack is not the only way in which a reactor meltdown can occur, mechanical failure is the other. The Chernobyl plant suffered a full meltdown of its core in 1986, while Three Mile Island Unit 2 in Pennsylvania experienced a partial meltdown in 1979, closing the reactor permanently. Both accidents were caused by mechanical failure, combined with human error.
Because Millstone 2/3 and many other reactors are aging, there is greater concern about parts being more likely to wear out, leak, or corrode. This concern was illustrated in March 2002 at the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, OH.
Adding to the concerns of the mechanical failure is the recent tendency of plant operators to run aging reactors more of the time. From 1970-94, Millstone 2/3 operated just 66%
of the time (U.S. average 75%). Reactors were often closed for routine inspections and to repair mechanical failures. Since January 1, 2001, this "capacity factor" leaped to 91% at Millstone. (2) Aging parts being pushed to the maximum presents another risk of a malfunction and major meltdown.
Regulatory responsibility for nuclear plant safety lies with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). From 1996 to 2002, the average annual hours of NRC inspection 4
time per reactor tumbled 30%. (3) This is a troubling trend, especially given the advancing age of the reactors.
- 3. Waste Buildup.
Each nuclear plant accumulates highly radioactive waste, known as "spent fuel rods."
These resemble 10-foot long steel rods about the diameter of a pencil, containing high levels of radioactivity, and must be placed in 40 foot deep pools of constantly-cooled water. Millstone is running out of pool space, and will soon need to begin transferring some of the older rods to "dry cask" storage, or thick concrete-and-steel containers stored above-ground on the site. The U.S. government is planning to eventually store all waste at Yucca Mountain Nevada, but this plan is being contested in the courts, and the earliest possible date that waste transfers would begin is 2010. Whether the waste remains on site, or is transferred to Nevada, a successful terrorist attack or mechanical failure could cause a large-scale meltdown.
- 4. Routine Emissions.
While most radioactivity produced in reactors is contained in the building and stored as waste, a small proportion of this mix of 100-plus carcinogenic chemicals escapes through the stacks of the reactor, or must be deliberately released during periodic refueling.
These tiny particles and gases present a concern for public health, since it enters the human body by breathing or through the food chain, after precipitation brings it to reservoirs, dairies, and other sources of food and water.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued comparative records on routine releases for all reactors until it ceased this publication in 1993. Prior to that time, Millstone had the 3rd highest lifetime emissions of 72 operating U.S. plants. Emissions totaled over 32 curies, or 32 trillion picocuries (a measure of radioactivity) released into the air, this includes only chemicals with a half-life of more than eight days, or those most likely to enter the human body. This figure is more than two times greater than the official tally of 14 trillion emitted into the air at Three Mile Island during the 1979 accident. (4) 5
HIGH AND RISING CANCER RATES IN CONNECTICUT Evidence suggests that Millstone emissions may increase the risk of cancer in Connecticut residents living nearby.
A. Rising Childhood Cancer Incidence.
Children, especially fetuses and infants, are most susceptible to the damaging effects of radiation exposure. As a result, many medical journal articles have been published about childhood cancer rates near nuclear power plants. A number have found elevated rates among children near plants.
In Connecticut, rates of childhood cancer have been rising in recent decades. From 1967-69 (before Millstone 1 startup) until 1996-98, the statewide rate for children age 0-4 rose 72%, from 14.21 to 24.45 cases per 100,000 population. About 50 Connecticut children under age five receive a diagnosis of cancer each year. Even in the 1990s, when U.S. child cancer rates were generally steady, Connecticut rates continued to increase. Figure 1 illustrates this trend, and actual numbers are presented as Appendix 1 to this report.
B. Childhood Cancer Increases in New London County After Millstone Startup.
Excessively large increases in childhood cancer occurred in New London County, where Millstone is located. In 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) published a large study of cancer rates near 62 U.S. nuclear plants before and after startup, including Millstone.
(5)
The NCI study showed that after Millstone opened in 1970, cancer incidence rates for children age 0-19 in New London County rose 17% faster than the Connecticut rate (Table 1). Put another way, the county rate was 12% below the state before startup, and 4% above after startup. The rate of cancer deaths among children in the county rose 25% faster than the nation (Table 2), moving from 13% below to 9% above the U.S.
Table 1 Cancer Incidence, Age 0-19 New London County vs. Connecticut Before and After Startup of Millstone Plant County % County is Cases Above/Below CT Age Before After Before After . % Change 0-9 111 84 - 2% +12% +14%
10-19 62 88 -25% - 4% +29%
TOT 0-19 173 172 -12% + 4% +17%
Before 1950-70; After = 1971-84 Source: National Cancer Institute, Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, 1990.
6
Table 2 Cancer Mortality, Age 0-19 New London County vs. U.S.
Before and After Startup of Millstone Plant County % County is Deaths Above/Below US Age Before After Before After % Chance 0-9 66 30 - 5% +13% +19%
10-19 32 33 -26% + 5% +42%
TOT 0-19 98 63 -13% + 9% +25%
Before 1950-70; After - 1971-84 Source: National Cancer Institute, Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, 1990.
A recent study showed that 14 of 14 areas near nuclear plants in the eastern U.S. had rates of childhood cancer age 0-9 above the U.S. rate during the 10-year period 1988-97, including Millstone. (6)
C. Radiosensitive Cancer Increases in New London County After Millstone Startup.
The New London cancer incidence rate also rose faster than the state rate in the first 14 years after Millstone startup for several types of cancer whose risk is known to be raised by radiation exposure. These include leukemia (rose +15% after the plant started up),
female breast cancer (+6%), thyroid cancer (+14%), and bone 'and joint cancer (+26%).
Persons of all ages are included in this comparison. The rate for all cancers combined rose 7% (Table 3).
The death rate for these cancers also rose more sharply in New London County than it did nationwide. The excess increases include leukemia (+9%), female breast cancer (+6%),
thyroid cancer (+86%), and bone and joint cancer (+26%). The death rate for all cancers combined rose 6% (Table 4).
7
Table 3 Cancer Incidence, Persons of All Ages Selected Radiosensitive Cancers New London County vs. Connecticut Before and After Startup of Millstone Plant County % County is Cases Above/Below CT Cancer Before After Before After % Change Leukemia 309 344 -14% - 1% +15%
(F) Breast 1311 1556 -11% - 6% + 6%
Thyroid 64 90 -31% -21% +14%
Bone + Joint 31 32 -11% +12% +26%
All Cancer 10111 11331 - 8% - 2% + 7%
Before - 1950-70; After - 1971-84. Difference of borderline significance for leukemia (p<.0 7) and breast cancer (p<.07). Difference statistically significant for all cancers combined (p<.0001).
Source: National Cancer Institute, Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, 1990.
Table 4 Cancer Mortality, Persons of All Ages Selected Radiosensitive Cancers New London County vs. U.S.
Before and After Startup of Millstone Plant County % County is Deaths Above/Below US Cancer Before After Before After % Change Leukemia 246 222 -9% - 1% + 9%
(F) Breast 561 552 + 7% +13% + 6%
Thyroid 16 19 -27% +36% +86%
Bone + Joint 39 26 - 6% +18% +26%
All Cancer 6052 5992 + 5% +11%
Before - 1950-70; After = 1971-84. Difference of borderline significance for thyroid cancer (p<.08). Difference statistically significant for all cancers combined (p<003).
Source: National Cancer Institute, Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, 1990.
D. Breast Cancer Increases in New London County After Millstone Startup.
The NCI study also showed that New London County's excess increases in breast cancer incidence occurred in young women, middle-aged women, and elderly women. The excess county increases compared to the state include age 20-39 (rose +21% after the plant started up), age 40-59 (+7%), and age 60 and over (+4%), see Table 5.
Breast cancer mortality in the county (compared to the U.S.) declined for age 20-39 (-
22%), but rose for age 40-59 (+12%) and 60 and up (+5%), see Table 6.
8
Table 5 Female Breast Cancer Incidence, by Age at Diagnosis New London County vs. Connecticut Before and After Startup of Millstone Plant County % County is Cases Above/Below CT Age Before After Before After % Change 20-39 90 101 -23% -- 7% +21%
40-59 548 595 -14% - 8% + 7%
60+ 673 860 - 8% - 4% + 4%
All Ages 1311 1556 - 11% - 6% + 6%
Before - 1950-70; After 1971-84. Difference of borderline significance for all ages (p<0 7).
Source: National Cancer Institute, Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, 1990.
Table 6 Female Breast Cancer Mortality, by Age at Death New London County vs. U.S.
Before and After Startup of Millstone Plant County % County is Deaths Above/Below US Cancer Before After Before After % Chanke 20-39 35 21 +28% + 0% -22%
40-59 185 175 -11% + 2% +12%
60+ 341 356 +15% +20% + 5%
All Ages 561 552 + 7% +13% + 6%
Before -1950-70; After = 1971.84 Source: National Cancer Institute, Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, 1990.
E. Cancer Incidence in New London County Towns Closest to Reactors.
The Connecticut Tumor Registry has operated since 1935, the oldest of any state registry in the U.S. It has produced a variety of reports on cancer incidence, and some are now available on the state Department of Public Health's web site.
Some of these reports present cancer incidence for each town and city in the state. These data permit an analysis of cancer in towns closest to nuclear reactors to be made. Table 7 examines 1995-99 cancer incidence in the six New London County towns that lie closest to (under ten miles from) the Millstone reactor, compared to the remainder of the county.
The six towns account for just under half of the county's residents.
9
Table 7 documents that the 1995-99 cancer incidence rate in the six towns (East Lyme, Groton, Lyme, New London, Old Lyme, and Waterford) was 2.0% above the state rate.
The rate in other New London towns was 5.9% below the state rate. If the rates were equal in the two portions of New London County, 238 fewer persons in the six towns would have been diagnosed with cancer in 1995-99.
Table 7 Total Cancer Incidence, New London County vs. CT By Area of the County, 1995-99 Cases. 1995-99 Area of CountL Actual Expected* % Above/Below CT Six Towns Nearest Millstone 3075 3014 + 2.0%
Other New London County 3577 3800 - 5.9%
- Expected cases if local rate were equal to state rate. Difference significant (p<.00 2); excess cases = 238. Towns closest to Millstone include East Lyme, Groton, Lyme, New London, Old Lyme, and Waterford Source: www.dph.state.ct.us F. Breast Cancer Incidence in New London County Towns Closest to Reactors.
The Connecticut Tumor Registry report also shows that 1995-99 female breast cancer incidence for the six New London County towns closest to the Millstone reactor was equal to the state rate, while the rest of the county was 10.1% below the state. The excess number of breast cancer cases is 52 (Table 8).
Table 8 Female Breast Cancer Incidence New London County vs. CT By Area of the County, 1995-99 Cases. 1995-99 Area of County Actual Expected* % Above/Below CT Six Towns Nearest Millstone 510 510 + 0.0%
Other New London County 484 538 - 10.1%
- Expected cases if local rate were equal to state rate. Excess cases - 52. Towns closest to Millstone include East Lyme, Groton, Lyme, New London, Old Lyme, and Waterford Source: wmvw.dph.state.ct.us G. Improvements in Infant. Child Health During Reactor Closing.
During the winter of 1995-96, workers at the Millstone plant publicized numerous safety infractions at the plant. The story became widely reported, including a cover story in the March 7, 1996 Time magazine.
Northeast Utilities, which operated the Connecticut nuclear plants at the time, ceased power production the three Millstone reactors plus Connecticut Yankee. Millstone I and Connecticut Yankee were permanently closed. But before Millstone Units 2 and 3 were 10
restarted, the company invested over $1 billion in needed plant and managerial upgrades.
It also paid a $2 million fine to the NRC, a record for any U.S. nuclear plant.
Millstone 3 restarted in July 1998, after 2 1/2 years of closure, while Millstone 2 began operations in June 1999, after 3 1/2 years of closure. Thus, the percent of time Millstone's operated was approximately 10% in 1996-97, about 50% in 1998-99, and about 90% in 2000-01. These four years with limited plant operations, and less opportunity for routine and accidental emissions were studied to detect any immediate changes in disease rates for local residents. Infants and young children were selected, since it is the youngest humans who are most susceptible to radiation's harmful effects.
Table 9 shows the change in infant mortality rates (deaths under one year) in the five counties located within 40 miles and downwind (north and east) of Millstone. These include New London, Tolland, and Windham Counties in Connecticut, plus Kent and Washington Counties in Rhode Island. In 1996-97, when there were virtually no nuclear operations at Millstone, the infant death rate fell by 18.1%, falling from 136 to 105 deaths. The U.S. decline in those years was only 6.8%. In 1998-99, as Millstone 2 and 3 began operating, the rate declined just 3.1%. But in 2000-01, when the two reactors returned to full power, the rate jumped 8.8% from the previous two years.
Table 9 Infant Mortality (Death Rate Age 0-1)
Counties <40 Miles and Downwind of Millstone 1994-2001 Deaths per Period Deaths <1 Yr Live Births 1.000 Births % Ch.
1994-95 (80% operating factor) 136 18,361 7.41 1996-97 (10% operating factor) 105 17,292 6.07 -18.1%
1998-99 (50% operating factor) 100 17,010 5.88 - 3.1%
2000-01 (90% operating factor) 112 17,499 6.40 + 8.8%
Sources: National Center for Health Statistics (available from http://wonder.cdc.gov. underlying cause of death). Bair FE. Weather of U.S. Cities, 4' Edition. Detroit: Gale Research Company Inc., 1992 (prevailing wind directions).
Counties include New London CT, Tolland CT, Windham CT, Kent RI, Washington RI.
Deaths in young children also followed this pattern. In 1994-95, there were 25 children age 1-9 in the five counties who died from all causes except accidents, suicide, and homicide. This number dropped to 15 in the next two years, when the Connecticut nuclear plants were closed, a rate decline of 39.1%. Thereafter, as Millstone gradually restarted operations, the number of deaths rose again, to 20 and 25 in subsequent two-year periods.
11
STUDY OF RADIOACTIVE STRONTIUM-90 IN BABY TEETH Since 1998, the Radiation and Public Health Project research group in New York has collected discarded baby teeth, and tested them for levels of radioactive Strontium-90, a chemical not found in nature, but only created in atomic bomb explosions and nuclear reactor operations. The group has tested over 4,000 teeth, mostly near seven U.S.
reactors, and found that Sr-90 levels rose sharply (48.5%) from the late 1980s to the late 1990s. Moreover, average Sr-90 levels are generally 30 to 50% higher in the counties closest to nuclear reactors. Results have been published in four separate medical journals. (7)
A total of 37 Connecticut teeth have been tested with available results (as of May 1, 2004), using the new counter. Of these, 31 were from persons born after 1979, in whom most of the in-body Sr-90 was from current sources, not leftover fallout from Nevada bomb tests. Thus, these 31 teeth will be the focus of this analysis. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING RESULTS MUST BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY, until more teeth are tested and the significance of the results is improved.
The major findings include:
- 1. Highest Average Sr-90 of All States. Six states (other than Connecticut) contributed at least 130 teeth. Of these, Connecticut's average of 4.29 picocuries of Sr-90 per gram of calcium at birth, was equaled only by Pennsylvania as the highest of all states thus far.
- 2. Higher Sr-90 in Children with Cancer. Five (5) of the 31 teeth were donated from Connecticut children with cancer. The Sr-90 average for these five teeth was 7.03, compared to 3.76 from other teeth, or 87% higher/nearly double.
- 3. Rising Levels in the 1990s. Connecticut children born 1985-88 had a Sr-90 average of 1.85 (five teeth). Those born in the next four years had an average of 3.61 (13 teeth); and those born 1993-96 had an average of 4.32 (six teeth), a rise of 134%,
(more than double) from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.
- 4. Highest Levels Near Nuclear Plants. Those eight (8) tooth donors from Fairfield and New London Counties (near the Indian Point and Millstone plants) had an average Sr-90 concentration of 6.16, or 128% greater/more than double those from the other counties in Connecticut (2.70).
RPHP plans to collect and test more Connecticut teeth in the future.
12
APPENDIX 1 CANCER INCIDENCE, AGE 04 CONNECTICUT, 1967-1998 Cases/100,000 Pop.
Year Dx Cases Population Annual 3 Yr. 3 Yr. Cases 1967 43 268344 16.02 15.15 124 1968 30 262708 11.42 14.42 116 1969 39 257014 15.17 14.21 112 1970 47 252187 18.64 15.03 116 1971 51 248355 20.54 18.08 137 1972 38 239964 15.84 18.37 136 1973 36 229954 15.66 17.40 125 1974 34 216746 15.69 15.73 108 1975 38 203959 18.63 16.60 108 1976 42 190358 22.06 18.66 114 1977 27 184367 14.64 18.49 107 1978 47 183430 25.62 20.78 116 1979 28 184561 15.17 18.47 102 1980 28 186933 14.98 18.56 103 1981 31 190795 16.25. 15.47 87 1982 33 193516 17.05 16.11 92 1983 42 198071 21.20 18.20 106 1984 51 201496 25.31 21.24 126 1985 41 207209 19.79 22.08 134 1986 44 212960 20.66 21.88 136 1987 60 219354 27.35 22.67 145 1988 50 225536 22.17 23.41 154 1989 48 232465 20.65 23.33 158 1990 34 234142 14.52 19.07 132 1991 48 236945 20.26 18.48 130 1992 52 237137 21.93 18.92 134 1993 56 236362 23.69 21.96 156 1994 41 232542 17.63 21.10 149 1995 43 223223 19.26 20.23 140 1996 63 221449 28.45 '21.71 147 1997 52 215576 24.12 23.93 158 1998 44 213177 20.64 24.45 159 13
REFERENCES:
- 1. Sandia National Laboratories. Consequences of a Reactor Accident (CRAC-2)
Report. Published by Congress on November 1, 1982, and printed by the Washington Post that day. Also available at http://www.geocities.comlmothersalert/crac.html.
- 2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Energy Institute. In The New York Times, October 2, 1995, p. Bi (1970-94 data). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, found at http://wwvv.nrc.gov in April 2001 (1995-99 data).
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 28, 2004.
- 4. Tichler J, Doty K, Lucademo K. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, annual reports. Upton NY: Prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pub. No. NUREG/CR-2907.
- 5. Jablon S, Hrubec, Z, Boice JD, Stone BJ. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No.90-874. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1990.
- 6. Mangano JJ et al. Elevated Childhood Cancer Incidence Proximate to U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. Archives of Environmental Health 2003;58(2):74-82.
- 7. Mangano JJ et al. An Unexpected Rise in Strontium-90 in US Deciduous Teeth in the 1990s. The Science of the Total Environment 2003;317:37-51.
14
6D \) 0-Lc (~ ? ~--T~k -i~'. 10, (.0-1 S.
MPurp seof Today's Me' ig, 1
Discuss NRC's license renewal process
- Describe the environmental review process
> Discuss the results of our review
> Provide the review schedule
- Accept any comments you may have today
> Describe how to submit comments
}l ~lstone Power Station, Lilnits and3 License Rqewal
.I4 >Operating, licenses expire in 21 respectivelyy
>Application requests authorizaint operate Millstone Power Station for up to additional 20 years 3.
I
I pc5 " /> Nat'o nvironmentaI
) NEPA requires Federal agencies to systematic approach to consider m__
environmental impacts Commission has determined that an __
environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for a license renewal action
~o-.Af ~ eam Expertise I ---.---
ta I
t P
- 9 3
low Impacts are dnnil~ Mporr fOe ,snr arers
, NRC-defined impact levels:
SMIALL- Efferris norderectabkeor roo snnil rod esmb notic eabl after annvimportant nrribt ofrhe reouree
. O1DERAM E: Brtirsfficintroaenltireoaobly~b rnoM destabtli e imprtaonnt rnnnbrtei ofthie resoNrre
- I.ARGF. Effet risclearly notireable andsiufficient to deswrbiti
important anribiuts ofthe retotzrre
- . Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for NEPA analyses II 4
a Gudr
^'Envi UseeQof mental Impacts alty n 1
9 Cooling System & Aguatic Resees
- Transmission Liness
- Radiological
>Socioeconomic
- Groundwater Use and QualityX
>6Threatened or Endangered Species inran ission r sri Lines\ gg
- -1 15 miles of corridors covering iv a acres
> Corridor impacts SMALL
> Electric shock from electromaneti field
> Maximum induced currents below National E ec Safety Code limnits - impacots SMALL s r Health effects of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences review concluded that health studies do not show sufficient evidence of risk to warrant concern impact is not further characterized 5
, -S n 0 nomicscsj
- Housing and public utility impacts during operation
- Nodiscoonmbk ch~sogo in hocu ingm r~ksi
>' IncrO bi w-o?r"Sq c.n beMnOlith
- i.1igcopiry
> Offsite land use and transportation
- o Aloo rije
- iisi onIloym mlIJ wnsWmndloo rUed trrw so
- > Coolirsss Poftoy Unpynonlo osIJd MAeL.tc oSAylendr
> historic and archaeological resources
- Se.er.l koowon omll.sl r sooii the slb,bil No nr.odo
> Ensironmental justice
> Al 4nTsds lore SMALL *nd wlodipnosrrioo.. thorIWrprw i. SM
> ALL IMPACTS SMALL 6
C-U u ative Impacts of 0 ation
- Considered impacts or renewal ter "oprt n combined with other past. present7.0ad reasoinal foreseeable future actions
- evaluated to end of 20-year renewal termX X
- geographic boundaries dependent on resource
, No significant cumulative impacts
Preliminary Con qsions for s F Altern es
- Alternatives (including the no-action a le may have environmental effects in many im categories that reach MODERATE or LARC significance 8
(lV IOiPostu 2(
ed Accidents I
>sDesign-basis accidents
>- Severe accidents
>-Severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs)
'ax
- S IIA Evaluation P~kess
~Proc<
1
> Characterize overall plant risk
> Identify potential improvements
> Quantify risk reduction potential and implementation costs
>.Determine whether implementation of any of improvements is required to support license renewal I
iminary Results or V*#4 SAMA luation 1,196 candidate improvements considered for U 185 for Unit 3 Set of SAMAs reduced based on mult i-step screenin process (to 44 for Unit 2 and 52 for Unit 3)v Detviled cost/benefit anliysis shows that one SAMA would be cost-beneflcial at Unit 2-ecnhance procedures to prevent z seal LOCA upon loss of component cooling water' 9
- Preiminary Results of r SAM AEvluation
> Two additional SAMAs could be m beneficial if they can be implemenltea without a hardware modification
> enhance capability to recover diesel general in a station blackout (Unit 2)
> enhance local manual operation of auxiliary feedwater if control power is lost (Unit 3)
'¢ \! Preliminary Results of
\N) SAMA ution
> Three SAMAs found to be pote n aly beneficial J
- - not related to managing the effects ognl
> not euired to be implemnented 3pans rlcns renea Ii
> Dominion plans to further evaluate these SAMAs an complete any implementation prior to the period of extended operation
. preliminary Conclusions i Impacts of license renewal are SMALL for a ct areas except entrainment of winter flounder larvae.
I MODERATE
' Impacts ofalternatives to license renewal range from*
SMALL to LARGE
- The staff's preliminary recommendation isthat the adve environmental impacts of license renewal for NMillstone not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable 10
f P-ot~o Contact and
' ; Referenc'Documents Agency point of contact:
Richard L Emnch. Jr.
(S00) 368-5642. Ext. 1599 Documents located at the Waterford Public Library. 4 Ferry Road. Waterford; or Three Rivers Community C Thames River Campus Library. 574 New London Tump Norwich. Connecticut Draft SEIS can also be viewed at the NRC-s Web site (www.nrc.gov) at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rrn/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srl437/supplemnent22l
>-e tt~w-S~ubmitting Com~ie ts I
- By mail at
- Chief, Rules Review and D es Branch -
US. Nuclear Regulatory Co Mailstop T-6D59 Washington. DC 20555-0001
, In person at: 11545 Rockvillc Pike Rockville. Maryland
- E-mail at
- MillstoneElS@nrc.gov 11
\,,RR EG at4
'90 tP** k6 12
Slide 25 My name is Bob Palla. I will be discussing the Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents. These impacts are described in Section 5.0 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or GEIS The GEIS evaluates two classes of accidents - Design-Basis Accidents and Severe Accidents.
Design Basis Accidents
- Design basis accidents are those accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the plant can safely respond to a broad spectrum of postulated accidents without risk to the public.
- The environmental impacts of design basis accidents are evaluated during the initial licensing process and the ability of the plant to withstand these accidents has to be demonstrated before the plant isgranted a license. Most importantly, a licensee is required to maintain an acceptable design and performance capability throughout the life of the plant including any extended-life operation. Since the licensee has to demonstrate acceptable plant performance for the design basis accidents throughout the life of the plant, the Commission has determined that the environmental impact of design basis accidents are of small significance.
- Neither the licensee nor the NRC is aware of any new and significant information on the capability of the Millstone plant to withstand design basis accidents. Therefore , the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to design basis accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS.
Severe Accidents
- The second category of accidents evaluated in the GEIS are severe accidents. Severe accidents are by definition, more severe than design basis accidents because they could result in substantial damage to the reactor core.
- The Commission found in the GEIS that the risk of a severe accident in terms of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal impacts are small for all plants.
Nevertheless the Commission determined that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not done so. We refer to these alternatives as Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, or SAMA for short.
- The SAMA evaluation is a site-specific assessment, and is a Category 2 issue as explained earlier.
- The SAMA review for Millstone Units 2 and 3 is summarized in Section 5.2 of the GEIS Supplement and described in more detail in Appendices H and I of the GEIS Supplement.
The purpose of performing the SAMA evaluation isto ensure that plant changes with the potential for improving severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated.
The scope of potential plant improvements that were considered included:
- hardware modifications
- procedure changes
- training program improvements, as well as other changes
- basically a full spectrum of potential changes The scope includes:
- SAMAs that would prevent core damage, as well as
- SAMAs that improve containment performance given that a core damage event occurs.
Slide 26 The SAMA evaluation consists of a 4-step process. The first step is to ...
- 1. Characterize overall plant risk and leading contributors to risk This typically involves the extensive use of the plant-specific Probabilistic Risk Assessment study, which is also know as the PRA The PRA is a study that identifies the different combinations of system failures and human errors that would be required for an accident to progress to either core damage or containment failure AND tf The second step in the evaluation is to ...
- 2. Identify potential Improvements that could further reduce risk The information from the PRA, such as the dominant accident sequences, is used to help identify plant improvements that would have the greatest impact in reducing risk Improvements identified in other NRC and industry studies, as well as SAMA analyses for other plants, are also considered The third step in the evaluation is to ...
- 3. Quantify the risk reduction potential and the Implementation costs for each improvement The risk reduction and the implementation costs for each SAMA are typically estimated using a bounding analysis:
The risk reduction is generally over-estimated by assuming that the plant improvement is completely effective in eliminating the accident sequences it is intended to address The implementation costs are generally under-estimated by neglecting certain cost factors, such as maintenance costs and surveillance costs associated with the improvement The risk reduction and cost estimates are used in the final step to ...
- 4. Determine whether Implementation of any of the Improvements can be justifled In determining whether an improvement is justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors:
The first is whether the improvement is cost-beneficial. In other words, is the estimated benefit greater than the estimated implementation cost of the SAMA?
The second factor is whether the improvement provides a significant reduction in total risk. For example, does it eliminate a sequence or a containment failure mode that contributes to a large fraction of plant risk?
The third factor is whether the risk reduction is associated with aging effects during the period of extended operation; in which case if it was we would consider implementation as part of the license renewal process.
Slide 27 The preliminary results of the Millstone SAMA evaluation are summarized on this next slide Approximately 190 candidate improvements were Identified for each of the operating units based on review of the plant-specific PRAs, relevant industry and NRC studies on severe accidents, and SAMA analyses performed for other plants - more precisely, 196 SAMAs for Unit 2 and 185 SAMAs for Unit 3 The licensee reduced the number of candidate SAMAs, based on a multi-step screening process. Factors considered during this screening included whether the SAMA:
- is not applicable to Millstone due to design differences,
- has already been addressed in the existing Millstone design, procedures, or training program This screening resulted in a set of 44 SAMAs for Unit 2 and 52 SAMAs for Unit 3 A more detailed assessment of the conceptual design and costs was then performed for each of the remaining SAMAs. This is described in detail in Appendices H and I of the GEIS Supplement.
The detailed cost-benefit analysis shows that one SAMA would be cost- beneficial at Unit 2
- "enhance procedures to prevent a seal LOCA upon loss of component cooling water" In Unit 2, the Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) system provides cooling of the reactor coolant pump seals and bearings. Loss of this system would lead to heatup and possible failure of the seals, possibly resulting in a loss of coolant from the reactor. This SAMA involves enhancing the procedure for loss of the Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water system, with the objective of cooling down and depressurizing the reactor prior to seal failure.
Note: For Unit 2, RCP integrity is assured by cooling of the RCP seals, thermal barrier, and bearings by RBCCW For Unit 3, RCP integrity is assured by either seal injection or thermal barrier cooling. Seal injection is via RBCCW. Thermal barrier cooling is via CCW.
Slide 28 Two additional SAMAs could be cost-beneficial if they can be implemented without a hardware modification
- enhance capability to recover diesel generator In a station blackout (Unit 2)
- enhance local manual operation of auxiliary feedwater if control power is lost (Unit 3)
The 1'1SAMA involves using a portable generator to energize the field on the emergency diesel generator-allowing the generator to be started in a station blackout event, or restarted after battery depletion. This would restore electrical power to the plant.
The 2nd SAMA involves developing a procedure for manually operating and controlling the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump when control power is lost. This would assure continued heat removal from the reactor through the steam generators.
Note: Current must be provided to the EDG field in order to produce electrical output.
The field current is initially provided by the batteries Once the EDG has started, the field current is self-sustaining and no longer relies on battery power.
Slide 29 In summary, the results of the SAMA evaluation indicate that three SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial However .... none of the cost-beneficial SAMAs are related to managing the effects of plant aging Accordingly, these SAMAs are not required to be implemented at Millstone as part of licerise renewal Although not required as part of license renewal, the licensee plans to further evaluate these SAMAs, and complete any implementation prior to the period of extended operation