ML073390074

Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point and Its Designated Representative'S Preliminary Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing

ML073390074
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/30/2007
From:	Burton N Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point (CRORIP)
To:	Lathrop K, Lawrence Mcdade, Richard Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS 14710
Download: ML073390074 (60)

Text

DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA November 30, 2007 (4:42pm)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop In the Matter of Docket Nos.

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) November 30,2007 CONNECTICUT RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO RELICENSING OF INDIAN POINT AND ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE'S PRELIMINARY PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point ("CRORIP") and its designated representative, Nancy Burton, petition herewith to intervene in the proceedings before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the application of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. ("Entergy") for relicensing" of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 ("Indian Point") in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR Section 2.309.

Standing CRORIP and its designated representative, Nancy Burton, assert standing in this matter pursuant to

.10 CFR Sections 2.309(d) and (e).

Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point ("CRORIP") is a coalition of organizations whose members reside in Connecticut and individuals who reside in Connecticut. The constituent organizations include People's Action for Clean Energy ("PACE"), the state's oldest all-volunteer safe-energy organization based in Canton, Connecticut; the Connecticut Chapter of the Sierra Club based in Hartford, Connecticut, a national organization whose missions is environmental protection; and Don't Waste Connecticut, an organization devoted to education on safe energy issues based in New Haven, Connecticut, and the Green Party of Connecticut. Many members of said constituent organizations and many individual members of CRORIP reside in Fairfield County, the entirety of which is located within the 50-mile radius of Indian Point, as illustrated in Entergy's License Renewal Application ("LRA"), Applicant's Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage, at 2-

- SectC7

37, Figure 2-8 at 2-103. The 2000 population of Fairfield County was 882,567 and projected to rise to 918,600 by the year 2035. Entergy Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage at 2-37.

Portions of New Haven County (2000 population 182,193, 2035 population 896,364) and Litchfield County (2000 population 182,193, 2035 population 217, 307) are also located within the 50-mile radius of Indian Point.

i. The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner.

CRORIP's designated representative is:

Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel. 203-938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com ii. The nature of requestor/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.

The petitioner, CRORIP, is comprised of residents of the State of Connecticut, many of whom reside in Fairfield County within 50 miles and downwind of Indian Point. As such, they are deemed by the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") to be within the "peak injury zone" in the event of an unplanned radiological event at Indian Point and therefore subject to serious injury during the projected relicensing term.

As residents of the State of Connecticut, CRORIP's members' interests will not be protected in the proceedings other than through their own direct intervention and participation, notwithstanding that the RLA identifies Fairfield County and parts of New Haven County and Litchfield County as being within the "peak injury zone."

CRORIP's participation in these proceedings will therefore assist in developing a sound and complete record in this matter.

iii. The nature and extent of the requestor/petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding.

CRORIP's constituents all reside in the State of Connecticut, many with their family members, and many are owners of real estate in which they have substantial investments. Most obtain their livelihood in the State of Connecticut or in the New York metropolitan area within 50 miles or closer to Indian Point. Thereby, CRORIP's membership is within the zone of jeopardy from ill consequences of Indian Point operations during the projected relicensing term.

For example, CRORIP believes that the continued operation of Indian Point in the projected relicensing period will subject them to heightened risk of negative health effects, including life-threatening illness particularly among its most vulnerable members, the young and the elderly. Fairfield County is located to the east-northeast of Indian Point. The community of Greenwich is but 16 miles

from Indian Point at its closest point. CRORIP intends to demonstrate through its expert that levels of strontium-90 in baby teeth of children born in Fairfield County are the highest in the New York metropolitan region, with the exception of the New York counties which are closest to Indian Point.

Recent cancer incidence in Fairfield County is 8% and 7% above the U.S. rates for males and females.

The section of Fairfield County with the highest cancer incidence rates are the towns in the southwest part of the county, downwind and closest to Indian Point. A statistical link has been established between high levels of strontium-90 in baby teeth and heightened risk of cancer incidence in the'counties nearest Indian Point.

iv. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requestor/petitioner's interest.

CRORIP's constituents will suffer prejudice and the prospect of avoidable injury in the event orders areultimately entered in this matter against their interests. CRORIP intends to file formal contentions, in addition to raising the issue of negative health risks from operations of Indian point during the projected relicensing term, which pertain to technical aspects of the facility and which if not property and adequately addressed will give rise to heightened risk of harm from such ongoing operations. A large-scale release of radioactivity in a catastrophic event, whether owing to mechanical failure, human error or an act of terrorism, would harm CRORIP's constituents by causing widespread devastation of the State of Connecticut.

Nancy Burton Nancy Burton ("Burton") owns and resides at property located at 147 Cross Highway, Redding Ridge, Connecticut, a location within 25 miles or less and downwind from Indian Point.

The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner.

Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel. 203-938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com ii. The nature of requestor/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.

Burton resides and earns her livelihood in Redding'Ridge, Connecticut, 25 miles or less and downwind from Indian Point. As such, she is deemed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("NRC") to be within the "peak injury zone" in the event of an unplanned radiological event at Indian Point and therefore subject to serious injury. As such, she has specific, personal and legal interests which will not otherwise be protected nor asserted in these proceedings other than through her direct intervention and participation.

(

iii. The nature and extent of the requestor/petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding.

Burton resides in Fairfield County in the State of Connecticut, and is the owner with her husband, William H. Honan, of the property located at 147 Cross Highway in which she has a substantial investment.

As an occupant of property located 25 miles or less and downwindfrom Indian Point, Burton is subject to exposure to routine and accidental releases of radionuclides carried by wind activity from Indian Point to her home and environs.

iv. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requestor/petitioner's interest.

Burton will suffer prejudice and the prospect of avoidable injury in the event orders are ultimately entered in this matter against her interests. Burton intends to file formal contentions, on her own behalf and on behalf of CRORIP as its delegated representative in these proceedings, in addition to raising the issue of negative health risks from operations of Indian Point during the projected relicensing term, which pertain to technical aspects of the facility and which if not property and adequately addressed will give rise to heightened risk of harm from such ongoing operations. A large-scale release of radioactivity in a catastrophic event, whether owing to mechanical failure, human error or an act of terrorism, would harm CRORIP's constituents by causing widespread devastation of the State of Connecticut.

Preliminary Contention Health risks from the cumulative effects of radiation exposure traceable to Indian Point routine and accidental releases during the projected relicensing term are substantial, have not been adequately accounted for in the RLA and constitute new information which should be but which has not been analyzed.

(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted.

Health risks from the cumulative effects of radiation exposure traceable to Indian Point routine and accidental releases during the projected relicensing term are substantial, have not been adequately accounted for in the RLA and constitute new information which should be but which has not been analyzed. The RLA dismisses these potential effects as being of only inconsequential ("small") concern, where they are of paramount concern to CRORIP membership and indeed all the communities in the environs of Indian Point and require consideration in these proceedings as a matter of law.

(ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis of the contention.

Indian Point released 17.50 Curies of radiation to the atmosphere between 1970 and 1993, making it the fifth highest of 72 nuclear power stations then operating in the U.S., behind Dresden, Oyster Creek,

Millstone and Quad Cities. (Tichler J. et al. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, annual reports. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton NY, NUREG/CR-2907) More recent data collected by the NRC demonstrates a six-fold increase in release of fission gases from fourth-quarter 2001 to 1st quarter 2002, about 100 times higher than 2st quarter 2001, including a 15-fold increase for Xenon-133. These facts provide a basis for concern about the potential releases of radiation during the projected relicensing period as the facility ages and cracks and leaks which have been detected currently inevitably worsen over time. Indeed, these facts also suggest an upward trending of radiological.

releases, contrary to the RLA, which asserts that radiological releases will continue at "current" levels.

See Applicant's Environmental report, Operating License Renewal Stage, Section 4.23.3 ("Cumulative Radiological Impacts")("With respect to the future, the REMP sampling locations identified in the IP2 and IP3 ODCMs have not identified increasing levels or the accumulation of radioactivity in the environment over time.")

(iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding.

The issue of the environmental and health consequencesof radiation releases to the environment is clearly within the scope*of this proceeding. In its Environmental Report, Appendix E, Entergy makes reference to the issue of its release of radiological materials to the environment in Sections 2.11.2

("Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program AirSampling Program"), 3.2.3 ("Radioactive Waste Treatment Processes (Gaseous, Liquid and Solid)") and in 4.23.3 ("Cumulative Radiological Impacts").

10 CFR Part 51 requires an analysis of the environmental impact of these releases during the projected*

relicensing term.

(iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding.

Ultimately, the NRC must decide whether Indian Point can operate safely through the projected relicensing term without causing harm to the health and safety of the public. The petitioner submits that continued Indian point operations beyond the current licensing period will subject the public to undue health and safety risks which have not been adequately analyzed.

The NRC's NUREG-1555, Supplement I is very specific about what the licensee is required to analyze with regard to radiological impacts of normal operations. See Section 4.3. Nevertheless, the RLA entirely omits data and information which is required regarding "new information on the radiological impacts of operation during the renewal term known to the applicant" as well as "new and potentially significant information on the impacts of renewal-term operations on radiologicalissues identified by the public."

(Emphasis added.)

CRORIP contends that information regarding the credible statistical link between elevated levels of strontium-90 detected in baby teeth of children living in the region surrounding Indian Point and heightened cancer and associated disease incidence in the same region has been made public and brought to the attention of Entergy.for a sufficient period of time to require its presentation in the application pursuant to the NUREG 1555, Supplement 1 passage quoted above, inter alia. This information is further developed in the Declaration of Joseph J. Mangano and his related report,

attachments hereto. Entergy's deliberate omission of this information requires admission of this contention.

(v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestor/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue.

CRORIP presents facts supporting its contention through the Declaration of Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director, Radiation and Public Health Project (attached) and his report titled "Public Health Risks to Fairfield County CT of Keeping the Indian Point Nuclear Reactors Open"(September 12, 2007)(attached), together with the sources cited by Mr. Mangano.

In brief, a statistical link has been established between elevated levels of the fission product strontium-90 in baby teeth of children living near Indian Point and heightened incidences of cancer and related diseases in the same population. Heightened health risks from exposure to Indian Point-generated radiological releases - which are cumulative in effect in the human body -coupled with the inevitable progression of cracking and leaking as the facility ages lead to the conclusion that continued operation of Indian Point in the projected relicensing term cannot occur without undue and therefore unacceptable risk to the public health and safety.

(vi) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law orfact. This information must contain references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes andthe supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioner's belief.

Entergy's Environmental Report, Operating License Renewal Stage. Section 4.23.3 ("Cumulative Radiological Impacts") states in pertinent partý:

On the basis of an evaluation of REMP [Radiological Environmental Monitoring Operating Reports] results, Entergy concludes that impacts of radiation exposure on the public and workers (occupational) from operation if IP2 and IP3 during the renewal term would be SMALL..

and therefore mitigation measures are not warranted.

CRORIP contends that Entergy failed to adequately evaluate the impact of its radiological releases on the public health or, in the alternative, it failed to document such evaluation in its application.

Original Si ned byacy Burton Nancy Bu 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel. 203-938-3952 Fax 203-938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop In the Matter of Docket Nos.

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATION S, INC. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generatin g Units 2 and 3) November 30, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the November 30, 2007 "CONNECTICUT RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO RELICENSING OF INDIAN POINT AND ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE'S PRELIMINARY PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING" were served on this 3 0 th day of November, 2007 upon the persons listed below, by first class mail and by email as shown below.

_Original signed by Nancy Burton 3ý Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel./Fax 203-938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: ocaamail@nrc.gov

Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 ,F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: hgml@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: rew@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: kdl12@nrc.gov

Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Susan Shapiro, Esq.

21 Perlman Drive Spring Valley NY Email: Palisadesart@aol.com Sherwood Martinelli Friends United for Sustainable Energy USA, Inc.

351 Dykman Street-Peekskill NY 19566 Email: roycepenstinger@aol.com Michael J. Delaney Vice President-Energy New York City Economic Development Corporation 110 William Street New York NY 10038 Email: mdelaney@nycedc.com

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: set@nrc.gov lbs3@nrc.gov, bnml@nrc.gov Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman New York AREA 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 New York NY 10016 Email: kremer@area-alliance.org Zachary S. Khan, law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: zxkl@nrc.gov Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS, BOCKIUS, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20004 Email: ksutton@morganlewis.com pbessette@morganlewis.com. martin.o.neill@morganlewis.com Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

112 Little MarketStreet Poughkeepsie NY 12601 Email: Mannaio@clearwater.org

05 : 4 3 p p. 2 Nov 30 07 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 2, L.L.C., and ) License No. DPR-26 ENTERGY NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT 3, L.L.C. ) License No. DPR-64 Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2 and ) Docket No. 50-247 Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3 ) Docket No. 50-286 License Renewal Application )

DECLARATION OF Joseph J. Mangano My name is Joseph J. Mangano; I live in Ocean City NJ., 150 miles from Indian Point.

Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point represents my interests in a Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing and Contentions; and the Notice of Appearance, in the matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., License Renewal Application.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and correct.

ExecUted this 30"' day 0fNovernber, 2007, at Ocean City, NJ.

Joseph J. Mangano State of New Jersey County of Cape May On the 3 0th day of November, in the year 2007 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared -N " Y\3 ,/ViA *'}rC ,personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of sati factory evidenc- o be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged. to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her their signatures(s), on the instrument, the individual(s) or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument.

~otarPublic J seph J anganý OT 1 STEPHANIE ELIZABETH

... NOTARY KLEINOI PUBL.IC STATEOF NEW JERSEY 1Y COMIMSSION EXP)RES AUGUST0$,2012

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH MANGANO

1. My name is Joseph Mangano. Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point has retained me as a consultant with respect to the above-captioned proceeding. I am a health researcher, and have worked with the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) since 1989. I currently serve RPHP as Executive Director.

My work with RPHP has involved conducting research on the risk of cancer and other disease from fission products emitted from nuclear reactors. To that end, I am the author or co-author of 23 medical journal articles that have been peer-reviewed by experts (unknown to me) and deemed appropriate for publication. I also am the author of Low Level Radiation and Immune Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy (Lewis 1998), and co-author of The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors (Four Walls Eight Windows, 1996).

For over a decade, our group has studied levels of radioactive Strontium-90 in baby teeth, based on prior studies in the 1960s in the U.S. and abroad. We have tested nearly 5,000 teeth in a laboratory, and five of the journal articles I mentioned address results of the tooth study. The effort is the only attempt to examine radioactivity levels in bodies of Americans living near nuclear reactors. My curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment A.

2. I submit the following comments in support of the Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point petition to intervene in the Indian Point relicensing proceedings.

3. Like all nuclear power reactors, Indian Point units 2 and 3 produce over 100 radioactive chemicals, or fission products, to generate electricity. Very few of these chemicals are found in nature, but are only produced in atomic bomb explosions and nuclear reactor operations. These chemicals, which are radioactive and known to cause cancer, include Cesium- 137, Iodine- 13 1, and Strontium-90.

4. Like all nuclear power reactors, Indian Point 2 and 3 emit radioactivity, in the form of gases and particles, into the air and water on a routine basis. Documentation of historical levels of these emissions is found in annual reports prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The amount of airborne releases from Indian Point exceeds that of most other U.S. reactor, and can vary over time by a factor of 100 or more. (1) (2)

5. Indian Point has also experienced unplanned releases of radioactive chemicals into the environment, documented in the official reports of radioactive emissions and environmental levels. (1) (2)

6. State and federal regulatory agencies report environmental radioactivity levels near Indian Point, along with areas far from any nuclear reactor. The reports document that radioactivity, levels are higher near Indian Point, and that there are large temporal 2

• variations,' both indicating that emissions from Indian Point are entering the air, water, and food in measurable quantities. (3) (4)

7. RPHP has measured levels of radioactive Strontium-90 (Sr-90) in a laboratory for nearly 5,000 baby teeth, over 500 of who are from children in the New York metropolitan area. Results, which are published in five medical journal articles, show that average Sr-90 levels near Indian Point are higher than any of the six nuclear plants with over 100 teeth studied, and that average levels near Indian Point have risen sharply since the late 1980s. (5)

The highest average Sr-90 is in the New York counties that flank Indian Point (Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester) at 3.78 picocuries of Sr-90 per gram of calcium at birth (279 teeth). The next highest area in the region was Fairfield County CT, which had an average of 3.45 (32 teeth), followed by the more distant New York City (3.10, 161 teeth) and Long Island (2.75, 94 teeth).

8. Hypotheses that low dose exposures to radioactivity are harmless to humans have been documented to be incorrect by scientific research. Nearly half a century ago, studies showing that pelvic X-rays to pregnant women raise the risk that the child will die of, cancer by age ten, in both the United Kingdom and the United States, were the first to demonstrate carcinogenic effects of low dose exposures. (6) (7)

9. Other official reports that counter the prevailing assumption that low dose exposures are harmless include a 1997 report by the National Cancer Institute, which estimated that up to 212,000 Americans developed thyroid cancer from Iodine-131 in Nevada above-ground atomic tests, and a 2000 U.S. Department of Energy report concluding that many studies demonstrate elevated cancer risk for workers in nuclear weapons plants. (8) (9)

Several recent reports from a blue ribbon panel of experts on radiation health effects, the most recent in 2005, reviewed many scholarly reports on the topic, and determined that there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure, i.e., there are health risks from even the lowest doses. (10)

10. The youngest humans (fetus, infant, and young child) are more susceptible to the harmful properties of exposure to radioactive chemicals than are adults. (11)

11. Official public health statistics document elevated levels of cancer incidence in the counties closest to Indian Point, including Fairfield County CT. Cancer incidence for all Fairfield County residents for the period 1998-2002 was 8.2% and 6.7% higher than the U.S. rate for males and females, respectively, based on a total of 33,975 cases in the county. The elevated rates are statistically significant. (12) The portion of Fairfield County with the highest cancer incidence rate are the towns in the southwest part of the county, directly downwind and closest to Indian Point.

Mortality in Fairfield *County from 1987-2004 was 5.6% below the U.S. for cancer (31,740), but 15.7% lower for all other causes (84,535 deaths), a statistically significant 3

difference. For children age 0-9, the gap was even greater: cancer mortality was 10.7%

above the U.S. (79 deaths), while mortality for other causes was 25.8% lower (1691 deaths). (13)

The recent rate of babies born underweight in Fairfield County exceeds U.S. rates by 3%,

12%, 3%, and 32% for whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, respectively. (14)

I incorporate by reference herein my report dated September 12, 2007 and entitled "Public Health Risk to Fairfield County of Keeping the Indian Point Nuclear Reactors Open."

12. RPHP has documented a statistical link between trends in average Sr-90 in baby teeth and trends in cancer incidence in children age 0-9 in Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties. Trends in Sr-90 were followed by similar trends in child cancer incidence four years later. Similar correlations were found in Ocean/Monmouth Counties in New Jersey (near the Oyster Creek nuclear reactor) and Suffolk County in New York (site of the Brookhaven reactors). (15)

13. A forthcoming medical journal article shows that of 14 U.S. nuclear plants started since 1982, the infant and fetal death rates rose most rapidly near the Grand Gulf plant in southwest Mississippi. The area near Grand Gulf has high (relative to the U.S.)

proportions of African-American residents, and its poverty level is also high. The results suggest that poor minorities are more susceptible to the toxic properties of pollutants such as ionizing radiation. (16)

)

14. It is my opinion that the statistical link between trends in average Sr-90 levels in baby teeth and trends in cancer incidence in children age 0-9 in Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam counties referenced above in paragraph 12 provides scientific support for belief that radiation releases from Indian Point are responsible in part for both trends and that such trends will continue during the proposed relicensing period should Indian Point be allowed to continue to operate and release radiation to the environment at current levels.

REFERENCES

1. Tichler J., Doty K, Lucadamo K. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, annual reports. NUREG/CR-2907. Upton NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Latest volume covers annual airborne emissions of Iodine-131 and effluents, or isotopes with a half life over 8 days, for each U.S. reactor for each year from 1970-1993.

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, REIRS (spell out what REIRS stands for) www.reirs.com/effluent. Presents amounts of environmental radioactive releases, covering a variety of isotopes, for all U.S. nuclear reactors for each year from 2001-2004.

3. New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Protection.

Environmental Radiation in New York State, annual volumes.

4

4. Annual Environmental Radiological Operating Report, Indian Point nuclear power plant, as reported to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov.

5. 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.

6. Stewart A et al. A Survey of childhood malignancies. British Medical Journal 1958;i:

1495-1508.

7. MacMahon B. Prenatal x-ray exposure and childhood cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1962;28:1173-92.

8. National Academy of Sciences. Exposure of the American People to Iodine-131 from Nevada Atomic Bomb Tests: Review of the National Canter Institute Report and Public Health Implications. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1998.

9. Alvarez R. The Risks of Making Nuclear Weapons: A Review of the Health and Mortality of U.S. Department of Energy Workers. Washington DC: The Government Accountability Project and Takoma Park MD: The Health and Energy Institute, 2000.

10. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2005 (latest report).

11. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, 2005. The document estimates that early-life exposure can be about 10-fold higher than the risk of an exposure of similar duration later in life.

12. Connecticut Tumor Registry, Department of Public Health, Hartford CT (Fairfield County cancer cases). National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) system, www.seer.cancer.gov, Cancer Statistics Review (U.S. data, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Utah, Atlanta, Detroit; San Francisco, Seattle). All rates adjusted to 2000 standard U.S. population. Differences in Fairfield County and U.S. rates are significant at p<.05.

13. National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death. ICD-9 codes for cancer are 140.0-239.9 (1987-1998), and ICD-10 codes for cancer are COO-D48.9 (1999-2004). All rates adjusted to 2000 U.S. standard population.

Differences in Fairfield County and U.S. rates are significant at p<.05.

14 National Center for Health Statistics, http://wonder.cdc.gov, births. Underweight births the proportion of children born under 2500 grams (5.5 pounds) from 1996-2002.

5

15. Mangano JJ. A short latency between radiation exposure from nuclear plants and cancer in young children. International Journal of Health Services 2006;36(1): 113-35.

16. Mangano JJ. Excess Mortality After Startup of a Nuclear Power Plant in Mississippi,"

International Journal of Health Services (accepted, publication expected early 2008).

ATTACHMENT A Joseph Mangano MPH MBA is a health researcher and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), which conducts research and education on health risks of nuclear reactors. Mr. Mangano has served RPHP since 1989. He has published 23 articles in medical journals that have been reviewed and approved for publication by experts. He is author of the book "Low Level Radiation and Immune System Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy" (Lewis 1998), and co-author of "The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors" (Four Walls Eight Windows 1996). His work has found a consistent pattern of increased cancer rates after nuclear reactors begun operating, and decreased rates after they shut down.

Mr. Mangano played a major role in the RPHP study of Strontium-90 in baby teeth, the only study ever to examine radioactivity levels in bodies of Americans living near nuclear plants..

The study found the highest Sr-90 levels closest to plants, rising levels since the late 1980s, and high levels in children with cancer.

Mr. Mangano has participated in 20 press conferences and presented testimony to 17 government panels. He has also written 25 editorials in U.S. newspapers in 2006-2007, most of them discussing the health risks of building new nuclear reactors. Because of his efforts, RPHP work has been extensively covered by media including The New York Times, USA Today, CNN, NPR and BBC. He received master's degrees in public health from the University of North Carolina and in business administration from Fordham University.

EDITORIALS IN NEWSPAPERS (30): (* denotes letter, others are editorials)

"Radiation Too Easily Dismissed in Cancer Study" Asbury Park (NJ) Press, 1/18/02 "French Fries Don't Give You Cancer" Pottstown (PA) Mercury, 2/14/05 "New Nukes Threaten Health in Illinois" Champaign (IL) News-Gazette, 1/15/06 "New Nuclear Reactors are a Threat to our Children's Health" Durham (NC) Herald-Sun, 2/13/06 "Nuclear Energy Produces Health, Safety Risks" Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch, 4/16/06 "Study Health of Neighbors of Millstone" New Haven (CT) Register, 5/23/06 "New South Texas Reactors: Build Them and Risks Will Come" Houston Chronicle, 7/22/06 "New Nuke Plants Hazardous to Amarillo's Health" Amarillo (TX) Globe-News, 8/18/06 "Grand Gulf Raises Health Questions" Monroe (LA) News-Star, 8/20/06 "A New Nuclear Facility Would Pose Health Concerns" Spartanburg (SC) Herald-J, 8/20/06 "Would a New Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant Be Safe?" Jackson (MS) Clarion-Ledger, 11/12/06 "Ask Your Commission to Consider Health Before Endorsing Plant" Idaho Statesman, 12/10/06.

"The Danger of Storing Nuclear Waste" Pottstown (PA) Mercury, 12/16/06 "A New Plant on the Horizon? Weighing Risks" Orlando (FL) Sentinel, 12/22/06 "Pilgrim Nuclear Plant's Cancer Menace" Providence (RI) Journal, 3/27/07 "New Reactor Would Pose Health Risk" Toledo (OH) Blade, 3/28/07*

6

"It is Time to Study All Nuclear Risks" Tuscaloosa (AL) News, 5/31/07*

"Nuclear Health Risks" The Huntsville (AL) Times, 6/5/07*

"Study Health Risks Before Proposing New Reactors" The Palm Beach (FL) Post, 6/18/07*

"Oyster Creek Regulators Can't Ignore Health Risks" Asbury Park (NJ) Press, 7/18/07 "For Safety's Sake, Shut Down Oyster Creek" Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger, 8/8/07 "Nuke Plants in Utah Would Pose Public Health Risk" Salt Lake City (UT) Tribune, 8/26/07 "VY: Clear and Present Danger?" Brattleboro (VT) Reformer, 9/14/07 "Nuclear Reactor an Unclean, Dangerous Source for Energy" Spfld. (MO) News-Leader, 9/22/07 "Oyster Creek: Safety First" Trenton (NJ) Times, 9/28/07 "Don't Keep Old Nuclear Plant Open in Ocean" Parsippany (NJ) Daily Record, 10/6/07 "Demand Answers on Cancer Causes" Ocean County (NJ) Observer, 10/24/07 "State Should Look to Truly Clean Energy Sources" Milwaukee (WI) Journal Sentinel, 10/30/07 "Indian Point Poses Health Threats" Westchester (NY) Journal News, 11/19/07*

"Demand Answers on Cancer Causes" Chattanooga (TN) Times Free Press, 11/25/07 MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES, author or co-author (14):

"Excess Mortality After Startup of a Nuclear Power Plant in Mississippi," International Journal of Health Services (accepted, publication expected early 2008).

"A Short Latency Between Radiation Exposure From Nuclear Plants and Cancer In Young Children,"

InternationalJournalof Health Services, winter 2006.

"Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, summer 2004.

"An Unexpected Rise in Strontium-90 in U.S. Deciduous Teeth in the 1990s," The Science of the Total Environment, Winter 2004.

"Elevated Childhood Cancer Incidence Proximate to U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," Archives of EnvironmentalHealth, Spring 2003.

"Infant Death and Childhood Cancer Reductions After Nuclear Plant Closing in the U.S.," Archives of EnvironmentalHealth, Spring 2002.

"Strontium-90 in Baby Teeth as a Factor in Early Childhood Cancer," InternationalJournal of Health Services, Fall 2000.

"Strontium-90 in Newborns and Childhood Disease," Archives of EnvironmentalHealth, Fall 2000.

"Improvements in Local Infant Health After Nuclear Power Reactor Closing," Journal of EnvironmentalEpidemiology and Toxicology, Spring 2000.

"The Strontium-90 Baby Teeth Study and Childhood Cancer," European Journal of Oncology, Fall 2000.

"A Rise in the Incidence of Childhood Cancer in the U.S.," InternationalJournal of Health Services, Spring 1999.

"A Post-Chernobyl Rise in Thyroid Cancer in Connecticut," European Journal of Cancer Prevention, February 1996.

7

"Cancer Mortality Near Oak Ridge, Tennessee," InternationalJournal of Health Services, Summer 1994.

"Cancer in Baseball Players: A New Outbreak?" Pesticides,People, and Nature, Summer 2000.

LETTERS TO MEDICAL JOURNALS (6):

"Childhood Leukemia Near U.S. Nuclear Plants," European Journal of Cancer Care, accepted.

(publication expected early 2008).

"Answering the Challenge," (response to Sen. Pete Domenici), Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 7/98.

"Low-Level Radiation Harmed Humans Near Three Mile Island," Environmental Health Perspectives, 8/97.

"Childhood Leukaemia in U.S. May Have Risen Due to Fallout From Chemobyl," BMJ, 4/19/97.

"Chemobyl and Hypothyroidism," Lancet, 5/25/96 and 8/17/96 (response to comment).

"Thyroid Cancer in the United States Since Accident at Chemobyl,' BMJ, 8/19/95 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS (3):

"Chernobyl Emissions Linked to a Variety of Adverse Health Effects in the U.S." In Kohnlein W and Nussbaum R (eds.): Effects of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation. Muenster, Germany: German Society for Radiation Protection, 1998.

"Health Effects of Low Dose Exposure to Fission Products from Chernobyl and the Fermi Nuclear Reactor in the Population of the Detroit Metropolitan Area." In Kohnlein W and Nussbaum R (eds.):

Effects of Low Dose Ionizing Radiation. Muenster, Germany: German Society for Radiation Protection, 1998.

"Low Level Radiation and Carcinoma of the Thyroid." In Schmitz-Feuerhake I and Lengfelder E (eds.):100 Jahre Roentgen: Berlin, Germany: German Society for Radiation Protection, 1995.

PRESS CONFERENCES (20):

- Washington DC, 4/00

- White Plains NY, 11/00 and 10/02

- Valhalla NY, 8/03

- Pottstown PA, 1/01, 11/03, 4/05, 5/06

- Toms River NJ, 5/00 and 4/01

- Mineola NY, 6/01

- New York City, 7/99, 4/02, and 11/07

- Trenton NJ, 5/03, 3/06, 6/07

- Hackensack NJ, 11/03

- Harrisburg PA, 8/04, 11/05 TESTIMONY TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (17):

- New York State energy advisory group (NYSERDA), 4/02

- New York City Council (Indian Point NY plant), 5/02 and 2/03

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Harris NC plant), 7/07

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Oyster Creek NJ plant), 7/06, 5/07 8

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Peach Bottom PA plant), 7/02 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' (Turkey Point FL plant), 7/01 Connecticut State utility commission, (Millstone CT plant) 11/00 U.S. Senate Environment Committee (Sen. Hillary R. Clinton), 6/01 Suffolk County (NY) legislature, Sr-90 in baby teeth, 8/00 Suffolk County (NY) Rhabdomyosarcoma task force, 2001-3 Westchester County (NY) legislature, Sr-90 in baby teeth 11/00, 10/02 New Jersey Commission on Radiation Protection, 2/05, 6/07 Ocean County (NJ) Board of Freeholders, 9/07 9

PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS TO FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CT OF KEEPING THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR REACTORS OPEN Joseph J. Mangano, MPH MBA Executive Director Radiation and Public Health Project September 12, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summ ary ................................................ 3 I. Introduction A. Brief History of Nuclear Power and Indian Point ............... 4 B. Radioactivity Produced in Reactors .............. ............. 4 II. Health Hazards Posed by Reactor Meltdowns A. Description ........................................... 5 B. Estim ates of Casualties ...................................... 5 III. Radioactivity from Indian Point /

A. Environmental Releases from Indian Point ...................... 6 B. Radioactivity Levels in Bodies Near Indian Point ................. 9 IV. Potential Health Risks from Indian Point in Fairfield County A. Rises in Connecticut Childhood Cancer ...................... .. 10 B. Fairfield County as a Low-Risk Area ....... .................... 11 C. Low W eight Births ..................... I..................... 11 D. Cancer Incidence........... ........................... 12 E. Cancer Mortality ................... .............. 13 V. Studies of Improved Health After Reactor Shutdown A. Precedent - Atomic Bomb Testing Halt ......................... 14 B. Precedent - Nuclear Reactor Closing ........................... 15 C. Potential Cancer Reductions After Indian Point Closing ............. 15

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The Indian Point nuclear plant, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan, has three reactors, two of which remain in operation. Entergy Nuclear, which operates the plant, has requested that the federal government extend the operating licenses of the two reactors for 20 additional years beyond their 2013 and 2015 expiration dates. To date, federal officials have not acknowledged any public health risks of license extension at Indian Point. This report explores risks from extending the Indian Point licenses.

Continued operation of Indian Point raises the risk of radioactivity exposure in two ways.

First, the reactor cores would produce high-level waste to be added to the 1,500 tons already at the site, worsening the consequences of a large-scale release. Second, because reactors routinely release radioactivity, keeping Indian Point in service would mean greater releases and risks to local residents.

This report addresses the potential risks of keeping Indian Point operating for Fairfield County,. CT. The county is located to the east-southeast of Indian Point, 16 miles away at its closest point in Greenwich and 45 miles away at its most distant in Stratford. The principal findings of this report are:

1. A large-scale release of\radioactivity in a meltdown, from mechanical failure or act of sabotage, would harm thouisands of Fairfield residents byradiation poisoning or cancer.

2. Indian Point has released the 5 1h greatest amount of airborne radioactivity out of 72 U.S. nuclear plants. In some periods, releases are up to 100 times greater than normal.

3. Levels of Strontium-90 in Fairfield County baby teeth are the highest in the New York metropolitan area, with the exception of the New York counties closest to Indian Point

4. The recent rate of babies born underweight in Fairfield County exceeds U.S. rates by 3%,-12%, 3%, and 32% for whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics

5. Recent cancer incidence in Fairfield County is 8% and 7% above the U.S. rate for males and females

6. The portion of Fairfield County with the highest cancer incidence rates are the towns in the southwest part of the county, directly downwind and closest to Indian Point

7. The Fairfield County death rate for children under age ten is I1-1% abový the U.S. rate, but 26% below for all other causes.

While many factors contribute to cancer risk, evidence suggests that more detailed study on Indian Point is warranted, and that residents of Fairfield County be informed of any potential health risks, as federal regulators consider Entergy Nuclear's proposal to extend the Indian Point licenses for 20 years.

'I.Introduction A. Brief History of Nuclear Power and Indian Point. The discovery of nuclear fission, or creation of high energy by splitting uranium atoms, was first used for military purposes, i.e. the atomic bombs in Japan during World War II. Soon after, other uses of the fission process were introduced. One of these was the creation of electric power from the heat generated by fission. The "Atoms for Peace" speech given at the United Nations by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 opened the door for the development of reactors that would produce electricity.

Hundreds of reactors were proposed by electric utilities, who were interested based on the potential to produce clean and cheap energy. In the New York City area, many reactors were discussed, and federal applications were formally submitted for a total of 16 within 100 miles of midtown Manhattan. Of these, only five eventually operated and only three still remain in operation (Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, and Oyster Creek).

The Indian Point plant is the former site of an amusement park in the town of Buchanan, in northwestern Westchester County. It is located on the Hudson River, the, source of power needed to operate the plant. Five reactors were expected at the site; however, the Verplanck 1 and 2 reactors were cancelled in the 1970s, and the Indian Point 1 reactor closed permanently in 1974.

Indian Point 2 and 3 have the capacity to generate 951 and 965 megawatts of electricity, respectively, much more than the Indian Point 1 capacity of 257. The reactors went critical (began producing radioactivity) on May 22, 1973 and April 6, 1976, respectively.

To date, no U.S. reactor has operated longer than 38 years, making the 34 and 31 year-old Indian Point reactors among the oldest.

B. Radioactivity Produced in Reactors. To produce electricity, nuclear power reactors split uranium-235 atoms, generating high energy that is transformed into electrical power.

This splitting process, known as fission, also produces over 100 chemicals not found in nature. These chemicals are the same as those found in the large clouds of fallout after above-ground atomic bomb tests.

Fission products, which-take the form of gases and particles, include Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90. They are highly unstable atoms which emit alpha particles, beta particles, or gamma rays. When they enter the body, they affect various organs. Cesium seeks out the muscles (including the heart and reproductive organs), iodine attacks the thyroid gland, and strontium attaches to bone. Each causes cancer after damaging DNA in cells and creating mutations, and is especially harmful to the fetus, infant, and child.

Some decay quickly (Iodine-131 has a half life of 8 days), while others remain for long periods (Strontium-90 has a half life of 29 years).

Most of the radioactivity produced in reactors is contained within the reactor building and stored as high-level waste in deep pools of water that must be constantly cooled. At Indian Point and at other aging plants, the pools are becoming full. Some of the waste has been transferred to above-ground outdoor casks, and this process is expected to begin at Indian Point in late 2007. Indian Point currently maintains over 1,500 tons of waste on

site, and additional radioactivity in the reactor cores. The amount of radioactivity at the plant is equivalent to several Chemnobyls, and hundreds of Hiroshima bombs.

The federal government has designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent site for high level nuclear waste. Yucca has encountered much opposition, and will not open until at least 2018 (according to the U.S. Energy Department). Some experts believe that Yucca Mountain or any permanent reposi'tory will never open, leaving existing nuclear plants to maintain the waste indefinitely.

11. Health Hazards Posed by Reactor Meltdowns A. Description. Much of the health concern posed by nuclear reactors is on the effects of a major meltdown. 'The radioactivity in a reactor core and waste pools must be constantly cooled by water, or the fuel will overheat, causing a huge release of radioactivity. This release can be caused by mechanical failure (such as what happened at Chernobyl in 1986) or by a deliberate act of sabotage.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed how high levels of radioactivity can harm humans.

Those closest to the bombs were vaporized, literally melting from the intense heat. But many other victims who survived the blast developed acute radiation poisoning, marked by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, skin burns, weakness, dehydration, bleeding, hair loss, ulcerations, bloody stool, and skin sloughing, according to the Medical Encyclopedia of the National Library of Medicine. A large number of bomb survivors also developed cancers over the next several decades; thyroid cancer had the greatest excess. (Source:

Thompson DE et al. Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors. Part 11: Solid Tumors, 1958-1987.

Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima Japan, 1994).

B. Estimates of Casualties. If a meltdown that caused large scale releases of radioactivity from the reactor core or the waste pools occurred at Indian Point, there would be no vaporizing of humans. However, many would suffer from acute radiation poisoning (short term) and cancer.(long, term). Several estimates have been made to calculate just how many would be harmed. In 1982, the Sandia National Laboratories submitted estimates to Congress for each U.S. nuclear plant (Indian Point estimates are in Table 1).

Table 1 Estimated Deaths/Cases of Acute Radiation Poisoning and Cancer Deaths Near Indian Point, Following a Core Meltdown Type of Effect Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3 Deaths, Acute Radiation Poisoning 46,000 50,000 Cases, Acute Radiation Poisoning 141,000 167,000 Cancer Deaths 13,000 14,000 Note: Acute radiation poisoning cases/deaths calculated within 17.5 miles from the plant, cancer deaths within 50 miles from the plant. Source: Sandia National Laboratories, Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC-2) for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. Prepared for U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Interior and insular Affairs. November 1, 1982.

The Sandia figures are known as CRAC-2 (for Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences). CRAC-2 estimated casualties for Indian Point are one of the highest of

any U.S. nuclear plant. Many believe the figures should be much larger, since the local population has grown since 1982 when the calculations were made, and people beyond a 17.5 mile radius from the plant will also suffer adverse health consequences.

More recently, the Union of Concerned Scientists prepared an estimate of casualties after a core meltdown from a terrorist attack. The 2004 report entitled "Chernobyl on the Hudson" estimated much higher casualties than did the 1982 Sandia effort. The Union's Dr. Edwin Lyman calculated that as many as 44,000 near term deaths from acute radiation syndrome within 50 miles and 518,000 long term deaths from cancer within 60 miles could occur, depending on weather conditions. (Source: Lyman ES, Chernobyl on the Hudson?: The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack on the Indian Point Nuclear Plant."

Washington DC: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. www.ucsusa.org).

Indian Point is more vulnerable to a meltdown from mechanical failure than most reactors because of its age, and more vulnerable to a terrorist attack due to its proximity to New York City. Since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center of September 11, 2001, much attention has been paid to the Indian Point as a potential terrorist target.

The reactors are also more vulnerable to a meltdown due to its parts corroding as the plant ages and as the reactors operate much more of the time in recent years; the operating factor from 2001-2004 was 94.6% and 95.6% for the two reactors (average 95%), an increase from the pre-1995 factors of 64.7% and 50.4% (average 58%). Source: U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in The New York Times, October 2, 1995.

The potential for a meltdown, while not highly likely, is a reality. A recent report by Greenpeace entitled "An American Chernobyl" identified 200 near-miss accidents at American reactors in the past two decades, four at Indian Point, all since 2000 (Table 2).

Table 2 Near Miss Accidents At Indian Point Since 1986 Date Reactor Description February 15, 2000 Indian Point 2 Steam generator tube rupture July 19, 2002 Indian Point 2 Degraded control room fire barrier August 14, 2003 Indian Point 2 Loss of offsite power due to NE blackout August 14, 2003 Indian Point 3 Loss of offsite power due to NE blackout Source: An American Chernobyl: Nuclear "Near Misses" at U.S. Reactors Since 1986. Washington DC:

Greenpeace, 2006. www.greenpeace.org.

III. Radioactivity from Indian Point A. Environmental Releases from Indian Point. All nuclear reactors must routinely emit radioactivity into the environment in order to operate. There are several forms of these emissions. One is accidental releases due to leaking equipment, which can include the cladding and welds of fuel rods in the reactor core, cracks and breaks in fuel that damages cladding, corroding pipes, and cracked steam generator tubes. These scenarios result in radioactivity released into the air and water. Radioactivity is also deliberately released into the local environment about every 18 months when reactors refuel.

Each utility is required by federal law to measure and report annual radioactive environmental emissions from nuclear reactors. From 1970-1993, the federal government produced a comparative listing of annual emissions for each U.S. reactor (it has since been discontinued). One measure of environmental emissions is known as airborne "Iodine- 131 and Effluents" or chemicals with a half life of at least eight days (and thus, are more likely to enter the body through breathing and the food chain). The list of the U.S. nuclear plants with the highest releases is given in Table 3:

Table 3 U.S. Nuclear Plants with Highest Emissions of Airborne Radioactivity, 1970-1993 Plant Location Reactors Emissions*

1. Dresden Morris IL 3 97.22

2. Oyster Creek Forked River NJ 1 77.05

.3. Millstone Waterford CT 2 32.80

4. Quad Cities Cordova IL 2 26.95

5. Indian Point Buchanan NY 3 17.50

6. Nine Mile Point Scriba NY 2 14.67

7. Brunswick Southport NC 2 14.50

8. Three Mile Island Londonderry PA 2 14.43

• Curies of Iodine-131 and effluents Source: Tichler J et al. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, annual reports. Upton NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-2907.

The Indian Point total of 17.50 curies is the 5 th highest of 72 U.S. plants, greater than the 14.43 curies from the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Most of the Indian Point total occurred in 1985 and 1986, with a total of 14.03 curies from Indian Point 2. Several years later, totals were changed to 1.90 curies; the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission attributed the change to a "clerical error." While original figures are used here, revised figures would still rank Indian Point as the 12 th highest in the nation.

More recent data on emissions is posted on the Internet by the federal government. Data for all U.S. reactors are listed from 2001-2004, by quarter, and by type of emission. No information for Indian Point 2 is given, and data for Indian Point 3 is incomplete. But examination of types of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions with complete data for each quarter from 2001-2004 from Indian Point 3 is helpful in understanding the large variations over time (Tables 4 and 5).

For example, fission gases rose about six-fold from 4 th quarter 2001 to the Is' quarter 2002 (about 15-fold for Xenon-133), about 100 times higher than 1st quarter 2001.

Second quarter 2004 airborne fission gases were much higher than typical 2003 releases.

More analysis is needed to understand reason(s) for these releases. But it is clear that there are very large swings in emissions levels over time.

Table 4 Airborne Radioactivity Released from Indian Point 3, in Millicuries by Quarter, 2001-04

Quarter Xenon- 133 Tot. Fission Gases Tritium 1st Q 01 59 91 360 2 nd Q 01 218 251 457 3 rd Q01 321 1040 1120 4 th Q 01 378 1400 1430 1st Q 02 5580 8180 1310 2 nd Q 02 1820 3790 1670 3 rdQ 02 166 202 1540 4 th Q 02 33 55 679 15t Q 03 141 181 495 2 nd Q 03 190 229 828 3 rd Q 03 371 525 951 4 th Q 03 523 1590 830 1st Q 04 144 204 1420 2 nd Q 04 1290 1450 1340 3 rd Q 04 29 58 1140 4 th Q 04 36 121 1570 One millicurie is 1/1000h of a curie. The physical half lives of Xenon-133 and Tritium are 5.24 days and 12.3 years, respectively. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. www.reirs.com/effiuent/EDB Table 5 Liquid Radioactivity Released from Indian Point 3, in Millicuries by Quarter, 2001-04 Quarter Fission/Activation Products Tritium 1st Q 01 27.0 251,000 2 nd Q 01 51.4 170,000 3 rd Q 01 36.4 22,900 4 th Q 01 12.0 482,000 1st Q 02 4.5 31,900 2 nd Q 02 2.5 19,600 3 rd Q 02 7.6 51,400 4 th Q 02 14.0 692,000 1st Q 03 3.9 667,000 2 nd Q 03 27.3 61,800 3 rd Q 03 7.5 187,000 4 th Q 03 6.3 38,500 1st Q 04 3.1 28,800 2 nd Q 04 3.0 71,800 3 rd Q 04 4.7 44,900 4 th Q 04 4.8 530,000 One millicurie is 1/10001th of a curie. The physical half life of Tritium is 12.3 years. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.reirs.com/effluent/EDB B. Radioactivity Levels in Bodies near Indian Point. The question of how much man-made radioactivity enters human bodies was first considered in the 1950s, when the U.S.

government sponsored studies that measured bone and teeth samples for Strontium-90, one of the 100-plus chemicals found in nuclear weapon explosions and nuclear reactor

operations. A landmark study of baby teeth in St. Louis found that the average Sr-90 level for children born in 1964 Oust as atomic bomb testing was stopped) was about 50 times greater than for children born in 1950. Furthermore, Sr-90 studies found that average concentrations in bodies plunged by about half from 1964 to 1969, after large-scale weapons testing in the atmosphere was banned. Similar studies of Sr-90 in bone and teeth in Europe found similar patterns. (Sources: Rosenthal HR. Accumulation of environmental strontium-90 in teeth of children. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hanford Biology Symposium, Richland WA, May 5-8, 1969. Washington DC: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1969.

Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission. Strontium-90 in Human Vertebrae. In:

Radiation Data and Reports, monthly volumes, 1964-1969).

Government officials dropped their in-body radiation monitoring programs in 1970, 1971, and 1982. No studies measuring in-body levels near U.S. nuclear plants existed until 1996, when the independent research group Radiation and Public Health Project initiated an effort measuring Sr-90 in baby teeth. RPHP used a machine designed to measure low-dose radioactivity levels and selected the REMS radiochemistry lab of Canada to establish protocols and test teeth.

The lab calculated the ratio of Sr-90 to calcium, and RPHP converted it to a ratio at birth, using the Sr-90 half life of 28.7 years. Most Sr-90 in a baby tooth is taken up during the last six months of pregnancy and the first few months of life. A tooth from a person age 28.7 years with a current ratio of 4.30 would have an at-birth ratio of 8.60. Teeth were classified accordingto where the mother lived during pregnancy and the first year of life, not the current residence.

RPHP has tested nearly 5,000 baby teeth, and published five medical journal articles on results. Average Sr-90 in baby teeth was 30-50% higher in counties closest to six U.S.

nuclear plants, and rose about 50% from the late 1980s to the late 1990s (reversing a prior decline), as reactors aged and were in operation more frequently. Results Were statistically significant, suggesting strongly that reactor emissions were entering human bodies. (Source: 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).

Over 500 teeth were collected and tested from the New York metropolitan area partly supported by a $25,000 grant from the Westchester County legislature. The average local Sr-90 level was highest in the four New York counties closest to Indian Point -

Westchester, Rockland, Orange, and Putnam (3.78 picocuries per gram of calcium),

followed closely by Fairfield County CT (3.45). The average in Fairfield exceeded both New York City and Long Island (Table 6).

Table 6 Average Strontium-90 in Baby Teeth, New York Metropolitan Area Region Teeth Average Sr-90 4 NY Cos. Near Indian P6int 279 3.78 Fairfield County 32 3.45 New York City 161 3.10 Long Island 94 2.75 Average = picocuries of Sr-90 per gram of calcium at birth. Only births after 1979 included.

Source: Radiation and Public Health Project While the tooth study provided some unique and important data, it is difficult to demonstrate exactly how the Sr-90 entered children's bodies. (Some is from the mother's bone stores, some through the mother's diet during pregnancy, and some through the baby's diet during infancy). Sr-90 enters bodies through milk, water, vegetation, and breathing. These limits do not, however, negate the importance of consistent and significant findings of high and rising levels of radioactivity closest to Indian Point.

IV. Potential Health Risks from Indian Point in Fairfield County A. Rises in Connecticut Childhood Cancer. Evidence suggests that exposure to fission products may have increased the risk of cancer in Connecticut - especially in children, who are most susceptible to radiation. Historical data shows that cancer in the youngest children - which most likely reflects harm during pregnancy - rose during above ground atomic bomb tests, and when nuclear reactors in and near the state operated.

Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests began in 1946 and ended in 1963. Connecticut cancer incidence age 0-4 from the late 1940s to the early 1960s rose from 14.86 to 19.37 cases per 100,000, up 30.3%. From 1967-1975, an additional five nuclear reactors in or near Connecticut began operating, two at Millstone, one at Connecticut Yankee, and two at Indian Point. Cancer incidence age 0-4 in the state rose from 15.28 to 23.13 cases per 100,000 from the late 1960s to the late 1990s, up 51.4% (Table 7).

Table 7 Conn. Cancer Incidence 0-4 During Bomb Tests/Reactor Operations, by 4-Year Periods Period of Bomb Testing Period of Reactor Operations Period Cases Pop. Rate Period Cases Pop. Rate 1945-48 105 706,630 14.86 1967-70 159 1,040,253 15.28 1949-52 139 803,118 17.31 1971-74 159 934,719 17.01 1953-56 155 921,131 16.83 1975-78 154 762,114 20.21 1957-60 175 1,082,820 16.16 1979-82 120 755,805 15.88 1961-64 217 1,120,124 19.37 1983-86 178 819,734 21.71 1987-90 192 911,497 21.06 1991-94 197 942,986 20.89 1995-98 202 873,425 23.13 Source: Connecticut Tumor Registry

B. Fairfield Count as a, Low-Risk Area. Fairfield County CT is located to the east-southeast of Indian 'Point, 16 miles away at its closest point in Greenwich and 45 miles away at its most distant in Stratford, making it the closest county in the state to Indian Point. The current county population is just over 900,000. It consists of 23 cities and towns, the largest of which are Bridgeport, Stamford, and Norwalk.

Fairfield County is not at apparent risk for health problems. Its population is better educated, has a higher income level, and has a lower unemployment rate than the nation, suggesting healthier living conditions and better health practices (Table 8). In addition to adequate financial access to medical care, Fairfield's location close to New York City gives its residents access to world class medical care.

Table 8 Demographic Comparison, Fairfield County vs. U.S.

Characteristic .Fairfield United States 2006 Estimated population 900,440 299,398,484 2005 %Black 10712.8 2005 % Hispanic 14.0 14..4 2005 % Asian 4.1 .4.3.

2000 % Foreign Born 16.9 1.4.4 2000 % HS grad > 25 84.4 80.4 2000 % Coll grad > 25 39.9 24.4 2000 % w Disability >5 16.0 - 19.0 2004 Median Household Inc $60,790 $44,334 2004 % Below poverty 8.5 12.7 2006 % Unemployment 3.8 4.6 Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, www.ers.usda.gov/data/unemployMent (for unemployment). U.S.

Census Bureau, www. census. gov. state and county quick facts (all other data).

C. Low Weight Births. As mentioned, the fetus and infant are most sensitive to the toxic effects of radiation exposure. The infant mortality rate in Fairfield County is below the national rate, as advances in medical treatment (most available to the affluent) save more lives than ever before. However, the healthy development of the fetus is not as likely to reflect medical treatment. Table 8 shows that in recent years, the rate of Fairfield County babies born at very low weight (under 3.3 pounds) exceeds the U.S. rate by 3%, 12%, 3%,

and 32% for whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

Table 8 Underweight Births by Race, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1996-2002 Live Births Rate/100 Births Race <3.3 lbs. Total County U.S.  % Co. vs. U.S.

Whites 839 71538 1.17 1.14 + 2.6%

Blacks 375 10862 3.45 3.07 +12.4%

Asian 43 3953 1.09 1.06 + 2.8%

Am. Indian 4 138 2.90 1.12 TOTAL 1261 86491 1.46 1.43 + 2.1%

(Hispanic 215 14379 1.51 1.14 +32.4%)

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://wonder.cdc.gov, births. Excludes births with no stated weight. 3.3 pounds equals 1500 grams. Hispanics are can be in any racial group.

C. Cancer Incidence. The Connecticut Tumor Registry began in 1935, making it the oldest in the United States. Table 9 compares recent (1998-2002) incidence of all cancers combined in Fairfield County with the U.S. The county rate is 8% and 7% above the U.S.

for males and females, respectively. A total of 33,975 cancer cases were diagnosed among county residents during the five-year period.

Table 9 Cancer Incidence, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1998-2002 Fairfield County Area Cases Cases/100000 U.S. Cases/100000  % Co. vs. U.S.

Males 12222 613.4 567.0 +8.2%

Females 11753 450.2 421.9 +6.7%

Source: Connecticut Tumor Registry, Department of Public Health, www.state.ct.us (Connecticut data).

Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results system, www.seer.cancer.gov (U.S. data, nine states and cities representing 10% of U.S. population, including Connecticut).

One of the most radiation-sensitive types of cancer is breast cancer in women. Breast cancer incidence has soared during the past two decades in the U.S., including in Connecticut. The 1998-2002 breast cancer incidence rate in Fairfield County is 6%

higher than the U.S. rate (145.8 vs. 137.1 per 100,000). Nearly 800 Fairfield County women are diagnosed with the disease each year.

Within Fairfield County, there are variations in cancer incidence. Rates for the 12 cities and towns closest to Indian Point (and southeast, or directly downwind of prevailing winds during the colder months) were compared with those for the 11 more distant cities and towns. The most recent data available are from 1995-1999 (Table 10).

For all cancers, incidence for the 3.6% below the state rate for the 12 closest towns, but 7.7% below for the other towns. For breast cancer, the rate for the 12 closest towns equaled the state rate, but was 13.4% lower for the other towns. Differences are significant, and excess cancer cases in the five years equal 554 (all) and 327 (breast).

Table 10 Incidence, All Cancers and Female Breast Cancer, By Area of Fairfield County, 1995-99 Cases, 1995-99 Area of County Actual Expected*  % Above/Below CT All Cancers Twelve Towns Nearest Indian Point 12940 13420 - 3.6%

Other Fairfield County 8141 8817 - 7.7%

Female Breast Cancer Twelve Towns Nearest Indian Point 2097 2094 + 0.0%

Other Fairfield County 1224 1413 - 13.4%

• Expected cases if local rateequaled state rate. For all cancers, difference is significant (p<.001); excess cases = 554.

For breast cancer, difference is significant (p<.001); excess cases = 327. Twelve towns are Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Ridgefield, Stamford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. Source:

Incidence of Selected Cancers in Connecticut by Town 1995-99, www.dph.state.ct.us/OPPE/hptumor.htm.

D. Cancer Mortality. The type of cancer most exteiisively studied for risks of radiation exposure is childhood cancer. In the past two decades, the rate of Fairfield County children under ten who died of cancer was 10.7% above the U.S. rate. This compares to a local rate 25.8% below the U.S. for all other causes for children under ten (Table 11).

Table 11 Mortality Rates, Cancer/Other Causes, Age 0-9, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1987-2004 Area Deaths Ann Pop Rate  % Co. vs. U.S.

Cancer Fairfield County 79 120903 3.63 +10.7%

United States 22760 38563621 3.28 All Other Causes Fairfield County 1691 120903 77.70 -25.8%

United States 726815 38563621 104.71 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

Uses ICD-9 cancer codes 140.0-239.9 (before 1999) and ICD-10 cancer codes COO-D48.9 (1999 and after).

Difference significant at p<.05.

The gap between deaths from cancer and other causes in Fairfield County also exists for persons of all ages. In the past two decades, the county death rate from cancer was 5.6%

below the U.S., but 15.7% below for all other causes. From 1987-2004, 31,740 Fairfield County residents died of cancer (Table 12).

Table 12 Mortality, Cancer/Other Causes, All Ages, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1987-2004 Area Deaths Ann Pop Rate  % Co. vs. U.S.

Cancer Fairfield County 31740 857942 196.7 - 5.6%

United States 9714422 267709000 208.3 All Causes Excluding Cancer Fairfield County 84535 857942 589.6 -15.7%

United States 31547295 267709000 699.5 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, htqp://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

Uses ICD-9 cancer codes 140.0-239.9 (before 1999) and ICD-10 cancer codes COO-D48.9 (1999 and after).

Rates adjusted to 2000 U.S. standard population. Difference significant at p<.0001. Excess number of cases equals 3174.

V. Studies of improved local health after reactor shutdown A. Precedent - Atomic Bomb Test Halt. If Indian Point closes, no more radioactivity will be produced or released from the reactor core, even though the slow-decaying forms of radioactive waste will remain at the plant. Closing the reactor will reduce levels of these products in the environment and body. When above ground atomic bomb tests ceased, chemicals that decay quickly (such as Iodine- 131, with a half life of eight days) virtually disappeared. Chemicals with a slower decay rate also dropped; Strontium-90 fell 75% in milk and 50% in bones from 1964-1970. (Source: Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. In: Radiation Data and Reports, monthly:volumes, 1964-1970).

Reduced environmental radioactivity raises the question of whether disease rates also decline, especially among the more susceptible infant and children. Cancer incidence age 0-4 in Connecticut rose as large-scale bomb testing continued; from 1959 to 1962, new cases increased steadily from 41 to 60. But after testing ended, cases plunged, from 60 to 30 between 1962 and 1968 (Table 13). Cancer incidence to young children can be seen as one of the most sensitive indicators of harm from radiation exposure.

Table 13 Annual Cancer Cases Diagnosed in Connecticut Children Age 0-4, 1959-1968 Year Cases Year Cases During Bomb Testing After Bomb Testing 1959 41 1964 53 1960 47 1965 38 1961 46 1966 43 1962 60 1967 43 1963 58 1968 30 Source: National Cancer Institute, Forty-five Years of Cancer Incidence in Connecticut: 1935-79. NIH Publication No. 86-2652. Bethesda MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1986.

B. Precedent - Nuclear Reactor Closing. Most radioactivity in the core of a nuclear reactor consists of chemicals that decay relatively quickly. A recent report calculated that a core meltdown just 20 days after shutdown of a fully operational reactor would mean 50% fewer cancer deaths and 81% fewer acute radiation deaths within 50 miles. Source:

Lyman ES. The Impact of Nuclear Plant Shutdown on Severe Accident Consequences. Washington DC:

Nuclear Control Institute, February 12, 2002.

Like atomic bomb test cessation, there may be a precedent for cancer reductions after nuclear reactors close and radioactive releases end. A 2002 journal article bythe Radiation and Public Health Project examines downwind areas near reactors that closed from 1987-1998 that were at least 70 miles from any other nuclear plant. Cancer incidence age 0-4*fell near each plant (total of -24.8%), even though there was a slight increase in U.S. childhood cancer during this period (Table 14).

Table 14 Change in Cancer Incidence, Age 0-4, Before and After Reactor Closing Counties Downwind and <40 Miles of Closed Reactors Reactor Year Closed Counties Downwind and <40 Miles LaCrosse 1987 LaCrosse, Vernon WI Rancho Seco 1989 Amador, El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento CA Fort St. Vrain 1989 Larimer,.Weld CO Big Rock Point 1997 Antrim, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Emmet, Otsego MI Maine Yankee 1997 Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln ME Zion 1998 Lake IL; Kenosha, Racine WI Before After Cases/1 00,000 (No.)

Reactor Close Close Before After  % Change LaCrosse '86-87 '88-94 40.0 ( 7) 24.6(15) -38.5%

Rancho Seco '88-89 '90-96 24.0(50) 17.6(153) -26.9%

Fort St. Vrain '88-89 '90-96 20.3 (10) 18.0 ( 32) -11.7%

Big Rock Pt. '96-97 '98-00 45.0( 7) 21.1 ( 5) -53.1%

Me. Yankee '96-97 '98-01 38.1(8) 27.2 (11) -28.5%'

Zion '97-98 '99-00 21.2(32) 19.7 (30) - 7.0%

TOTAL 24.7 (114) 18.5 (246) -24.8%

U.S. ANNUAL AVERAGE CHANGE, 1986-1998 +0.3%

Sources: State cancer registries, in Mangano JJ et al. Infant Death and Childhood Cancer Reductions after Nuclear Plant Closings in the United States. Archives of Environmental Health 2002;57(10):23-32.

C. Potential Cancer Reductions After Indian Point Closing. There are potential implications of these historical trends for Fairfield County if Indian Point were to cease operating. County rates of low weight births, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality often exceed the national rate, even though there are no obvious local risk factors. With about 4,000 and 2,000 Fairfield county residents being diagnosed with and dying of cancer each year, reduced exposures to radioactive chemicals could reduce those with cancer by hundreds each year. Such a change would be of great benefit to society, as it

would save the enormous direct medical costs of treatment, and would allow more members of society to function productively. These risks should be considered in.

contrast with other forms of electricity that do not pollute, such as solar and wind power.

PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS TO FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CT OF KEEPING THE INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR REACTORS OPEN Joseph J. Mangano, MPH MBA, Executive Director Radiation and Public Health Project September 12, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summ ary ................................................ 3 I. Introduction A. Brief History of Nuclear Power and Indian Point ................ 4 B. Radioactivity Produced in Reactors ........................... 4 II. Health Hazards Posed by Reactor Meltdowns A. Description ........ ................................... 5 B. Estim ates of Casualties ...................................... 5 III. Radioactivity from Indian Point A. Environmental Releases from Indian Point...................... 6 B. Radioactivity Levels in Bodies Near Indian Point ................. 9 IV. Potential Health Risks from Indian Point in Fairfield County A. Rises in Connecticut Childhood Cancer ....................... .. 10 B. Fairfield County as a Low-Risk Area ........................... 11 C. Low Weight Births ......................................... 11 D. Cancer Incidence ...... ................... ........ 12 E. Cancer M ortality ........................................... 13 V. Studies of Improved Health After Reactor Shutdown A. Precedent - Atomic Bomb Testing Halt ...................... 14 B. Precedent - Nuclear Reactor Closing ........................ 15 C. Potential Cancer Reductions After Indian Point Closing ............. 15

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The Indian Point nuclear plant, 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan, has three reactors, two of which remain in operation. Entergy Nuclear, which operates the plant, has requested that the federal government extend the operating licenses of the two reactors for 20 additional years beyond their 2013 and 2015 expiration dates. To date, federal officials have not acknowledged any public health risks of license extension at Indian Point. This report explores risks from extending the Indian Point licenses.

Continued operation of Indian Point raises the risk of radioactivity exposure in two ways.

First, the reactor cores would produce high-level waste to be added to the 1,500 tons already at the site, worsening the consequences of a large-scale release. Second, because reactors routinely release radioactivity, keeping Indian Point in service would mean greater releases and risks to local residents.

This report addresses the potential risks of keeping Indian Point operating for Fairfield County, CT. The county is located to the east-southeast of Indian Point, 16 miles away at its closest point in Greenwich and 45 miles away at its most distant in Stratford. The principal findings of this report are:

1. A large-scale release of radioactivity in a meltdown, from mechanical failure or act of sabotage, would harm thousands of Fairfield residents by radiation poisoning or cancer.

2. Indian Point has released the 5th greatest amount of airborne radioactivity out of 72 U.S. nuclear plants. In some periods, releases are up to 100 times greater than normal.

3. Levels of Strontium-90 in Fairfield County baby teeth are the highest in the New York metropolitan area, with the exception of the New York counties closest to Indian Point

4. The recent rate of babies born underweight in Fairfield County exceeds U.S. rates by 3%, 12%, 3%, and 32% for whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics

5. Recent cancer incidence in Fairfield County is 8% and 7% above the U.S. rate for males and females

6. The portion of Fairfield County with the highest cancer incidence rates are the towns in the southwest part of the county, directly downwind and closest to Indian Point

7. The Fairfield County death rate for children under age ten is 11% above the U.S. rate, but 26% below for all other causes.

While many factors contribute to cancer risk, evidence suggests that more detailed study on Indian Point is warranted, and that residents of Fairfield County be informed of any potential health risks, as federal regulators consider Entergy Nuclear's proposal to extend the Indian Point licenses for 20 years.

I. Introduction A. Brief History of Nuclear Power and Indian Point. The discovery of nuclear fission, or creation of high energy by splitting uranium atoms, was first used for military purposes, i.e. the atomic bombs in Japan during World War II. Soon after, other uses of the fission process were introduced. One of these was the creation of electric power from the heat generated by fission. The "Atoms for Peace" speech given at the United Nations by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 opened the door for the development of reactors that would produce electricity.

Hundreds of reactors were proposed by electric utilities, who were interested based on the potential to produce clean and cheap energy. In the New York City area, many reactors were discussed, and federal applications were formally submitted for a total of 16 within 100 miles of midtown Manhattan. Of these, only five eventually operated and only three still remain in operation (Indian Point 2, Indian Point 3, and Oyster Creek).

The Indian Point plant is the former site of an amusement park in the town of Buchanan, in northwestern Westchester County. It is located on the Hudson River, the source of power needed to operate the plant. Five reactors were expected at the site; however, the Verplanck 1 and 2 reactors were cancelled in the 1970s, and the Indian Point 1 reactor closed permanently in 1974.

Indian Point 2 and 3 have the capacity to generate 951 and 965 megawatts of electricity, respectively, much more than the Indian Point 1 capacity of 257. The reactors went critical (began producing radioactivity) on May 22, 1973 and April 6, 1976, respectively.

To date, no U.S. reactor has operated longer than 38 years, making the 34 and 31 year-old Indian Point reactors among the oldest.

B. Radioactivity Produced in Reactors. To produce electricity, nuclear power reactors

.split uranium-235 atoms, generating high energy that is transformed into electrical power.

This splitting process, known as fission, also produces over 100 chemicals not found in nature. These chemicals are the same as those found in the large clouds of fallout after above-ground atomic bomb tests.

Fission products, which take the form of gases and particles, include Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90. They are highly unstable atoms which emit alpha particles, beta particles, or gamma rays. When they enter the body, they affect various organs. Cesium seeks out the muscles (including the heart and reproductive organs), iodine attacks the thyroid gland, and strontium attaches to bone. Each causes cancer after damaging DNA in cells and creating mutations, and is especially harmful to the fetus, infant, and child.

Some decay quickly (Iodine- 131 has a half life of 8 days), while others remain for long periods (Strontium-90 has a half life of 29 years).

Most of the radioactivity produced in reactors is contained within the reactor building and stored as high-level waste in deep pools of water that must be constantly cooled. At Indian Point and at other aging plants, the pools are becoming full. Some of the waste has been transferred to above-ground outdoor casks, and this process is expected to begin at Indian Point in late 2007. Indian Point currently maintains over 1,500 tons of waste on

site, and additional radioactivity in the reactor cores. The amount of radioactivity at the plant is equivalent to several Chernobyls, and hundreds of Hiroshima bombs.

The federal government has designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent site for high level nuclear waste. Yucca has encountered much opposition, and will not open until at least 2018 (according to the U.S. Energy Department). Some experts believe that Yucca Mountain or any permanent repository will never open, leaving existing nuclear plants to maintain the waste indefinitely.

II. Health Hazards Posed by Reactor Meltdowns A. Description. Much of the health concern posed by nuclear reactors is on the effects of a major meltdown. The radioactivity in a reactor core and waste pools must be constantly cooled by water, or the fuel will overheat, causing a huge release of radioactivity. This release can be caused by mechanical failure (such as what happened at Chernobyl in 1986) or by a deliberate act of sabotage.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed how high levels of radioactivity can harm humans.

Those closest to the bombs were vaporized, literally melting from the intense heat. But many other victims who survived the blast developed acute radiation poisoning, marked by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, skin bums, weakness, dehydration, bleeding, hair loss, ulcerations, bloody stool, and skin sloughing, according to the Medical Encyclopedia of the National Library of Medicine. A large number of bomb survivors also developed cancers over the next several decades; thyroid cancer had the greatest excess. (Source:

Thompson DE et al. Cancer Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors. Part 11: Solid Tumors, 1958-1987.

Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima Japan, 1994).

B. Estimates of Casualties. If a meltdown that caused large scale releases of radioactivity from the reactor core or the waste pools occurred at Indian Point, there would be no vaporizing of humans. However, many would suffer from acute radiation poisoning (short term) and cancer (long term). Several estimates have been made to calculate just how many would be harmed. In 1982, the Sandia National Laboratories submitted estimates to Congress for each U.S. nuclear plant (Indian Point estimates are in Table 1).

Table 1 Estimated Deaths/Cases of Acute Radiation Poisoning and Cancer Deaths Near Indian Point, Following a Core Meltdown Type of Effect Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3 Deaths, Acute Radiation Poisoning 46,000 50,000 Cases, Acute Radiation Poisoning 141,000 167,000 Cancer Deaths 13,000 14,000 Note: Acute radiation poisoning cases/deaths calculated within 17.5 miles from the plant, cancer deaths within 50 miles from the plant. Source: Sandia National Laboratories, Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC-2) for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. Prepared for U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. November 1, 1982.

The Sandia figures are known as CRAC-2 (for Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences). CRAC-2 estimated casualties for Indian Point are one of the highest of

any U.S. nuclear plant. Many believe the figures should be much larger, since the local population has grown since 1982 when the calculations were made, and people beyond a 17.5 mile radius from the plant will also suffer adverse health consequences.

More recently, the Union of Concerned Scientists prepared an estimate of casualties after a core meltdown from a terrorist attack. The 2004 report entitled "Chernobyl on the Hudson" estimated much higher casualties than did the 1982 Sandia effort. The Union's Dr. Edwin Lyman calculated that as many as 44,000 near term deaths from acute radiation syndrome within 50 miles and 518,000 long term deaths from cancer within 60 miles could occur, depending on weather conditions. (Source: Lyman ES, Chernobyl on the Hudson?: The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack on the Indian Point Nuclear Plant."

Washington DC: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. www.ucsusa.org).

Indian Point is more vulnerable to a meltdown from mechanical failure than most reactors because of its age, and more vulnerable to a terrorist attack due to its proximity to New York City. Since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center of September 11, 2001, much attention has been paid to the Indian Point as a potential terrorist target.

The reactors are also more vulnerable to a meltdown due to its parts corroding as the plant ages and as the reactors operate much more of the time in recent years; the operating factor from 2001-2004 was 94.6% and 95.6% for the two reactors (average 95%), an increase from the pre-1995 factorsof 64.7% and 50.4% (average 58%). Source: U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in The New York Times, October 2, 1995.

The potential for a meltdown, while not highly likely, is a reality. A recent report by Greenpeace entitled "An American Chernobyl" identified 200 near-miss accidents at American reactors in the past two decades, four at Indian Point, all since 2000 (Table 2).

Table 2 Near Miss Accidents At Indian Point Since 1986 Date Reactor Description February 15, 2000 Indian Point 2 Steam generator tube rupture July 19, 2002 Indian Point 2 Degraded control room fire barrier August 14, 2003 Indian Point 2 Loss of offsite power due to NE blackout August 14, 2003 Indian Point 3 Loss of offsite power due to NE blackout Source: An American Chernobyl: Nuclear "Near Misses" at U.S. Reactors Since 1986. Washington DC:

Greenpeace, 2006. www.greenpeace.org.

III. Radioactivity from Indian Point A. Environmental Releases from Indian Point. All nuclear reactors must routinely emit radioactivity into the environment in order to operate. There are several forms of these emissions. One is accidental releases due to leaking equipment, which can include the cladding and welds of fuel rods in the reactor core, cracks and breaks in fuel that damages cladding, corroding pipes, and cracked steam generator tubes. These scenarios result in radioactivity released into the air and water. Radioactivity is also deliberately released into the local environment about every 18 months when reactors refuel.

Each utility is required by federal law to measure and report annual radioactive environmental emissions from nuclear reactors. From 1970-1993, the federal government produced a comparative listing of annual emissions for each U.S. reactor (it has since been discontinued). One measure of environmental emissions is known as airborne "Iodine- 131 and Effluents" or chemicals with a half life of at least. eight days (and thus, are more likely to enter the body through breathing and the food chain). The list of the U.S. nuclear plants with the highest releases is given in Table 3:

Table 3 U.S. Nuclear Plants with Highest Emissions of Airborne Radioactivity, 1970-1993 Plant Location Reactors Emissions*

1. Dresden Morris IL 3 97.22

2. Oyster Creek Forked River NJ 1 77.05

3. Millstone Waterford CT 2 32.80

4. Quad Cities. Cordova IL 2 26.95

5. Indian Point Buchanan NY 3 17.50

6. Nine Mile Point Scriba NY 2 14.67

7. Brunswick Southport NC 2 14.50

8. Three Mile Island Londonderry PA 2 14.43

• Curies of Iodine- 131 and effluents Source: Tichler J et al. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, annual reports. Upton NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-2907.

The Indian Point total of 17.50 curies is the 5 th highest of 72 U.S. plants, greater than the 14.43 curies from the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Most of the Indian Point total occurred in 1985 and 1986, with a total of 14.03 curies from Indian Point 2. Several years later, totals were changed to 1.90 curies; the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission attributed the change to a "clerical error." While original figures are used here, revised figures would still rank Indian Point as the 12 th highest in the nation.

More recent data on emissions is posted on the Internet by the federal government. Data for all U.S. reactors are listed from 2001-2004, by quarter, and by type of emission. No information for Indian Point 2 is given, and data for Indian Point 3 is incomplete. But examination of types of airborne and liquid radioactive emissions with complete data for each quarter from 2001-2004 from Indian Point 3 is helpful in understanding the large variations over time (Tables 4 and 5).

For example, fission gases rose about six-fold from 4 th quarter 2001 to the 1st quarter 2002 (about 15-fold for Xenon-133), about 100 times higher than 1st quarter 2001.

Second quarter 2004 airborne fission gases were much higher than typical 2003 releases.

More analysis is needed to understand reason(s) for these releases. But it is clear that there are very large swings in emissions levels over time.

Table 4 Airborne Radioactivity Released from Indian Point 3, in Millicuries by Quarter, 2001-04

Quarter Xenon- 133 Tot. Fission Gases Tritium ist Q 01 59 91 360 2 nd Q 01 218 251 457 3 rd Q 01 321 1040 1120 4 th QO1 378 1400 1430 1st Q 02 5580 8180 1310 2 nd Q 02 1820 3790 1670 3 rd Q 02 166 202 1540 4 th Q 02 33 55 679 1st Q 03 141 181 495 2 nd Q 03 190 229 828 3 rd Q 03 371 525 951 4 th Q 03 523 1590 830 1st Q 04 144 204 1420 2 nd Q 04 1290 1450 1340 3rd Q 04 29 58 1140 4 th Q 04 36 121 1570 One millicurie is 1/1000th of a curie. The physical half lives of Xenon-133 and Tritium are 5.24 days and 12.3 years, respectively. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. www.reirs.com/effiluent/EDB Table 5 Liquid Radioactivity Released from Indian Point 3, in Millicuries by Quarter, 2001-04 Quarter Fission/Activation Products Tritium 1it Q 01 27.0 251,000 2 nd Q 01 51.4 170,000 3 rd Q 01 36.4 22,900 4 th Q 01 12.0 482,000 1st Q 02 4.5 31,900 2 nd Q 02 2.5 19,600 3 rd Q 02 7.6 51,400 4 th Q 02 14.0 692,000 1st Q 03 3.9 667,000 2 nd Q 03 27.3 61,800 3 rd Q 03 7.5 187,000 4 th Q 03 6.3 38,500 1st Q 04 ,3.1 28,800 2 nd Q 04 3.0 71,800 3 rd Q 04 4.7 44,900 4 th Q 04 4.8 530,000 One millicurie is 1/1000th of a curie. The physical half life of Tritium is ,12.3 years. Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. www.reirs.com/effluent/EDB B. Radioactivity Levels in Bodies near Indian Point. The question of how much man-made radioactivity enters human bodies was first considered in the 1950s, when the U.S.

government sponsored studies that measured bone and teeth samples for Strontium-90, one of the 100-plus chemicals found in nuclear weapon explosions and nuclear reactor

operations. A landmark study of baby teeth in St. Louis found that the average Sr-90 level for children born in 1964 (just as atomic bomb testing was stopped) was about 50 times greater than for children born in 1950. Furthermore, Sr-90 studies found that average concentrations in bodies plunged by about half from 1964 to 1969, after large-scale weapons testing in the atmosphere was banned. Similar studies of Sr-90 in bone and teeth in Europe found similar patterns. (Sources: Rosenthal HR. Accumulation of environmental strontium-90 in teeth of children. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Hanford Biology Symposium, Richland WA, May 5-8, 1969. Washington DC: U.S, Atomic Energy Commission, 1969.

Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission. Strontiuni-90 in Human Vertebrae. In:

Radiation Data and Reports, monthly volumes, 1964-1969).

Government officials dropped their in-body radiation monitoring programs in 1970, 1971, and 1982. No studies measuring in-body levels near U.S. nuclear plants existed until 1996, when the independent research group Radiation and Public Health Project initiated an effort measuring Sr-90 in baby teeth. RPHP used a machine designed to measure low-dose radioactivity levels and selected the REMS radiochemistry lab of Canada to establish protocols and test teeth.

The lab calculated the ratio of Sr-90 to calcium, and RPHP converted it to a ratio at birth, using the Sr-90 half life of 28.7 years. Most Sr-90 in a baby tooth is taken up during the last six months of pregnancy and the first few months of life. A tooth from a person age 28.7 years with a current ratio of 4.30 would have an at-birth ratio of 8.60. Teeth were classified according to where the mother lived during pregnancy and the first year of life, not the current residence.

RPHP has tested nearly 5,000 baby teeth, and published five medical journal articles on results. Average Sr-90 in baby teeth was 30-50% higher in counties closest to six U.S..

nuclear plants, and rose about 50% from the late 1980s to the late 1990s (reversing a prior decline), as reactors aged and were in operation more frequently. Results were statistically significant, suggesting strongly that reactor emissions were entering human bodies. (Source: Mangano JJ et al. An unexpected rise in Strontium-90 in US deciduous teeth inthe 1990s. The Science of the Total Environment 2003;317:37-51).

Over 500 teeth were collected and tested from the New York metropolitan area partly supported by a $25,000 grant from the Westchester County legislature. The average local Sr-90 level was highest in the four New York counties closest to Indian Point -

Westchester, Rockland, Orange, and Putnam (3.78 picocuries per gram of calcium),

followed closely by Fairfield County CT (3.45). The average in Fairfield exceeded both New York City and Long Island (Table 6).

Table 6 Average Strontium-90 in Baby Teeth, New York Metropolitan Area Region Teeth Average Sr-90 4 NY Cos. Near Indian Point 279 *3.78 Fairfield County 32 3.45 New York City 161 3.10 Long Island 94 2.75 Average = picocuries of Sr-90 per gram of calcium at birth. Only births after 1979 included.

Source: Radiation and Public Health Project While the tooth study provided some unique and important data, it is difficult to demonstrate exactly how the Sr-90 entered children's bodies. (Some is from the mother's bone stores, some through the mother's diet during pregnancy, and some through the baby's diet during infancy). Sr-90 enters bodies through milk, water, vegetation, and breathing. These limits do not, however, negate the importance of consistent and significant findings of high and rising levels of radioactivity closest to Indian Point.

IV. Potential Health Risks from Indian Point in Fairfield County A. Rises in Connecticut Childhood Cancer. Evidence suggests that exposure to fission products may have increased the risk of cancer in Connecticut- especially in children, who are most susceptible to radiation. Historical data shows that cancer in the youngest children - which most likely reflects harm during pregnancy - rose during above ground atomic bomb tests, and when nuclear reactors in and near the state operated.

Atmospheric nuclear weapons tests began in 1946 and ended in 1963. Connecticut cancer incidence age 0-4 from the late 1940s to the early 1960s rose from 14.86 to 19.37 cases per 100,000, up 30.3%. From 1967-1975, an additional five nuclear reactors in or near Connecticut began operating, two at Millstone, one at Connecticut Yankee, and two at Indian Point. Cancer incidence age 0-4 in the state rose from 15.28 to 23.13 cases per 100,000 from the late 1960s to the late 1990s, up 51.4% (Table 7).

Table 7 Conn. Cancer Incidence 0-4 During Bomb Tests/Reactor Operations, by 4-Year Periods Period of Bomb Testing Period of Reactor Operations Period Cases Pop. Rate Period Cases Pop+/- Rate 1945-48 105 706,630 14.86 1967-70 159 1,040,253 15.28 1949-52 139 803,118 17.31 1971-74 159 934,719 17.01 1953-56 155 921,131 16.83 1975-78 154 762,114 20.21 1957-60 175 1,082,820 16.16 1979-82 120 755,805 15.88 1961-64 217 1,120,124 19.37 1983-86 178 819,734 21.71 1987-90 192 911,497 21.06 1991-94 197 942,986 20.89 1995-98 202 873,425 23.13 Source: Connecticut Tumor Registry

B. Fairfield County as a Low-Risk Are-a. Fairfield County CT is located to the east-southeast of Indian Point, 16 miles away at its closest point in Greenwich and 45 miles away at its most distant in Stratford, making it the closest county in the state to Indian Point. The current county population is just over 900,000. It consists of 23 cities and towns, the largest of which are Bridgeport, Stamford, and Norwalk..

Fairfield County is not at apparent risk for health problems. Its population is better educated, has a higher income level, and has a lower unemployment rate than the nation, suggesting healthier living conditions and better health practices (Table 8). In addition to adequate financial access to medical care, Fairfield's location close to New York City gives its residents access to world class medical care.

Table 8 Demographic Comparison, Fairfield County vs. U.S.

Characteristic Fairfield United States 2006 Estimated population 900,440 299,398,484 2005 %Black 10.7 12.8 2005 % Hispanic 14.0 14.4 2005 % Asian 4.1 4.3 2000 % Foreign Born 16.9 14.4 2000 % HS grad > 25 .84.4 80.4 2000 % Coil grad > 25 39.9 24.4 2000 % w Disability >5 16.0. 19.0 2004 Median Household Inc $60,790 $44,334 2004 % Below poverty 8.5 12.7 2006 % Unemployment 3.8 4.6 Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, www.ers.usda.fzov/data/unemplovment (for unemployment). U.S.

Census Bureau, www .census .gov, state and county quick facts (all other data).

C. Low Weight Births. As mentioned, the fetus and infant are most sensitive to the toxic effects of radiation exposure. The infant mortality rate in Fairfield County is below the national rate, as advances in medical treatment (most available to the affluent) save more lives than eyer before. However, the healthy development of the fetus is not as likely to reflect medical treatment. Table 8 shows that in recent years, the rate of Fairfield County babies born at very low weight (under 3.3 pounds) exceeds the U. S. rate by 3 %, 12%, 3 %,

and 32% for whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

Table 8 Underweight Births by Race, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1996-2002 Live Births Rate/100 Births Race <3.3 lbs. Total County U.S.  % Co. vs. U.S.

Whites 839 71538 1.17 1.14 + 2.6%

Blacks 375 10862 3.45 3.07 +12.4%

Asian 43 3953 1.09 1.06 + 2.8%

Am. Indian 4 138 2.90 1.12 TOTAL 1261 86491 1.46 1.43 + 2.1%

(Hispanic 215 14379 1.51 1.14 +32.4%)

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://wonder.cdc.gov, births. Excludes births with no stated weight. 3.3 pounds equals 1500 grams. Hispanics are can be in any racial group.

C. Cancer Incidence. The Connecticut Tumor Registry began in 1935, making it the oldest in the United States. Table 9 compares recent (1998-2002) incidence of all cancers combined in Fairfield County with the U.S. The county rate is 8% and 7% above the U.S.

for males and females, respectively. A total of 33,975 cancer cases were diagnosed among county residents during the five-year period.

Table 9 Cancer Incidence, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1998-2002 Fairfield County Area Cases Cases/100000 U.S. Cases/100000  % Co. vs. U.S.

Males 12222 613.4 567.0 +8.2%

Females 11753 450.2 421.9 +6.7%

Source: Connecticut Tumor Registry, Department of Public Health, www.state.ct.us (Connecticut data).

Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results system, www.seer.cancer.gov (U.S. data, nine states and cities representing 10% of U.S. population, including Connecticut).

One of the most radiation-sensitive types of cancer is breast cancer in women. Breast cancer incidence has soared during the past two decades in the U.S., including in Connecticut. The 1998-2002 breast cancer incidence rate in Fairfield County is 6%

higher than the U.S. rate (145.8 vs. 137.1 per 100,000). Nearly 800 Fairfield County women are diagnosed with the disease each year.

Within Fairfield County, there are variations in cancer incidence. Rates for the 12 cities and towns closest.to Indian Point (and southeast, or directly downwind of prevailing winds during the colder months) were compared with those for the 11 more distant cities and towns. The most recent data available are from 1995-1999 (Table 10).

For all cancers, incidence for the 3.6% below the state rate for the 12 closest towns, but 7.7% below for the other towns. For breast cancer, the rate for the 12 closest towns equaled the state rate, but was 13.4% lower for the other towns. Differences are significant, and excess cancer cases in the five years equal 554 (all) and 327 (breast).

Table 10 Incidence, All Cancers and Female Breast Cancer, By Area of Fairfield County, 1995-99 Cases, 1995-99 Area of County Actual Expected*  % Above/Below CT All Cancers Twelve Towns Nearest Indian Point 12940 13420 - 3.6%

Other Fairfield County 8141 8817 - 7.7%

Female Breast Cancer Twelve Towns Nearest Indian Point 2097 2094 + 0.0%

Other Fairfield County 1224 1413 - 13.4%

• Expected cases if local rate equaled state rate. For all cancers, difference is significant (p<.001); excess cases = 554.

For breast cancer, difference is significant (p<.001); excess cases = 327. Twelve towns are Darien, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Ridgefield, Stamford, Trumbull, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. Source:

Incidence of Selected Cancers in Connecticut by Town 1995-99, www.dph.state.ct.us/OPPE/hptumor.htm.

D. Cancer Mortality. The type of cancer most extensively studied for risks of radiation exposure is childhood cancer. In the past two decades, the rate of Fairfield County children under ten who died of cancer was 10.7% above the U.S. rate. This compares to a local rate 25.8% below the U.S. for all other causes for children under ten (Table 11).

Table 11 Mortality Rates, Cancer/Other Causes, Age 0-9, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1987-2004 Area Deaths Ann Pop Rate  % Co. vs. U.S.

Cancer Fairfield County 79 120903 3.63 +10.7%

United States 22760 38563621 3.28 All Other Causes Fairfield County 1691 120903 77.70 - 25.8%

United States 726815 38563621 104.71 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

Uses ICD-9 cancer codes 140.0-239.9 (before 1999) and ICD-10 cancer codes COO-D48.9 (1999 and after).

Difference significant at p<.05.

The gap between deaths from cancer and other causes in Fairfield County also exists for persons of all ages. In the past two decades, the county death rate from cancer was 5.6%

below the U.S., but 15.7% below for all other causes. From 1987-2004, 31,740 Fairfield County residents died of cancer (Table 12).

Table 12 Mortality, Cancer/Other Causes, All Ages, Fairfield County vs. U.S., 1987-2004 Area Deaths Ann Pop Rate  % Co. vs. U.S.

Cancer Fairfield County 31740 857942 196.7 - 5.6%

United States 9714422 267709000 208.3 All Causes Excluding Cancer Fairfield County 84535 857942 589.6 - 15.7%

United States 31547295 267709000 699.5 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://wonder.cdc.gov, underlying cause of death.

Uses ICD-9 cancer codes 140.0-239.9 (before 1999) and ICD-10 cancer codes COO-D48.9 (1999 and after).

Rates adjusted to 2000 U.S. standard population. Difference significant at p<.0001. Excess number of cases equals 3174.

V. Studies of improved local health after reactor shutdown A. Precedent - Atomic Bomb Test Halt. If Indian Point closes, no more radioactivity will be produced or released from the reactor core, even though the slow-decaying forms of radioactive waste will remain at the plant. Closing the reactor will reduce levels of these products in the environment and body. When above ground atomic bomb tests ceased, chemicals that decay quickly (such as Iodine-13 1, with a half life of eight days) virtually disappeared. Chemicals with a slower decay rate also dropped; Strontium-90 fell 75% in milk and 50% in bones from 1964-1970. (Source: Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. In: Radiation Data and Reports, monthly volumes, 1964-1970).

Reduced environmental radioactivity raises the question of whether disease rates also decline, especially among the more susceptible infant and children. Cancer incidence age 0-4 in Connecticut rose as large-scale bomb testing continued; from 1959 to 1962, new cases increased steadily from 41 to 60. But after testing ended, cases plunged, from 60 to 30 between 1962 and 1968 (Table 13). Cancer incidence to young children can be seen as one of the most sensitive indicators of harm from radiation exposure.

Table 13 Annual Cancer Cases Diagnosed in Connecticut Children Age 0-4, 1959-1968 Year Cases Year Cases During Bomb Testing After Bomb Testing 1959 41 1964 53 1960 47 1965 38 1961 46 1966 43 1962 60 1967 43 1963 58 1968 30 Source: National Cancer Institute, Forty-five Years of Cancer Incidence in Connecticut: 1935-79. NIH Publication No. 86-2652. Bethesda MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1986.

B. Precedent - Nuclear Reactor Closing. Most radioactivity in the core of a nuclear reactor consists of chemicals that decay relatively quickly. A recent report calculated that a core meltdown just 20 days after shutdown of a fully operational reactor would mean 50% fewer cancer deaths and 81% fewer acute radiation deaths within 50 miles. Source:

Lyman ES. The Impact of Nuclear Plant Shutdown on Severe Accident Consequences. Washington DC:

Nuclear Control Institute, February 12, 2002.

Like atomic bomb test cessation, there may be a precedent for cancer reductions after nuclear reactors close and radioactive releases end. A 2002 journal article by the Radiation and Public Health Project examines downwind areas near reactors that closed from 1987-1998 that were at least 70 miles from any other nuclear plant. Cancer incidence age 0-4 fell near each plant (total of -24.8%), even though there was a slight increase in U.S. childhood cancer during this period (Table 14).

Table 14 Change in Cancer Incidence, Age 0-4, Before and After Reactor Closing Counties Downwind and <40 Miles of Closed Reactors Reactor Year Closed Counties Downwind and <40 Miles LaCrosse 1987 LaCrosse, Vernon WI Rancho Seco 1989 Amador, El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento CA Fort St. Vrain 1989 Larimer, Weld CO Big Rock Point 1997 Antrim, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Emmet, Otsego MI Maine Yankee 1997 Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln ME Zion 1998 Lake IL; Kenosha, Racine WI Before After Cases/100,000 (No.)

Reactor Close Close Before After  % Change LaCrosse '86-87 '88-94 40.0 ( 7) 24.6 (15) -38.5%

Rancho Seco '88-89 '90-96 24.0 (50) 17.6 (153) -26.9%

Fort St. Vrain '88-89 '90-96 20.3 (10) 18.0 ( 32) -11.7%

Big Rock Pt. '96-97 '98-00 45.0(7) 21.1( 5) -53.1%

Me. Yankee '96-97 '98-01 38.1( 8) 27.2 (11) -28.5%

Zion '97-98 '99-00 21.2 (32) 19.7 (30) - 7.0%

TOTAL 24.7 (114) 18.5 (246) -24.8%

U.S. ANNUAL AVERAGE CHANGE, 1986-1998 + 0.3%

Sources: State cancer registries, in Mangano JJ et al. Infant Death and Childhood Cancer Reductions after Nuclear Plant Closings in the United States. Archives of Environmental Health 2002;57(10):23-32.

C. Potential Cancer Reductions After Indian Point Closing. There are potential implications of these historical trends for Fairfield County if Indian Point were to cease operating. County rates of low weight births, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality often exceed the national rate, even though there are no obvious local risk factors. With about 4,000 and 2,000 Fairfield county residents being diagnosed with and dying of cancer each year, reduced exposures to radioactive chemicals could reduce those with cancer by hundreds each year. Such a change would be of great benefit to society, as it

would save the enormous direct medical costs of treatment, and would allow more members of society to function productively. These risks should be considered in contrast with other forms of electricity that do not pollute, such as solar and wind power.

CONNECTICUT RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO RELICENSING OF INDIAN POINT c/o Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876

'Tel. 203-938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com November 30, 2007 Re: Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Request for Extension to File Formal Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing with Contentions

Dear Hon. Chairman McDade,

Judge Wardwell and Judge Lathrop:

I am the designated representative of Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point ("CRORIP"), a coalition of Connecticut residents and organizations. We intend to file today a preliminary Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing in the above-referenced dockets with a single, preliminary contention.

Unfortunately, because of the recent shutdown and unreliability of the NRC's ADAMS system, documented by other prospective parties hereto, we have not been able to access necessary documents, including the applicant's license renewal application, for a substantial period.

We respectfully request a 10-day extension of time within which to submit our formal Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing with contentions, to December 10, 2007.

It is our understanding that on November 16, 2007, the NRC granted a 10-day extension until December 10 to Friends United for Sustainable Energy ("FUSE") upon a similar request and that other similar extension requests have subsequently been granted.

We respectfully submit that granting our present request will assist the Board in establishing a uniform and efficient schedule for these important proceedings.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop In the Matter of Docket Nos.

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) November 30, 2007 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF NANCY BURTON The undersigned, being a member of Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point

("CRORIP"), and duly authorized to act as its representative in this proceeding, hereby enters her appearance in the above-captioned matters as a representative of CRORIP.

Original Signed by Nncy Burton Nancy Bu t 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel. 203-938-3952 Fax 203-938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop In the Matter of Docket Nos.

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. 50-247-LR and'50-286-LR (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) November 30, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the letter of Nancy Burton dated November 30, 2007 setting forth the request of Connecticut Residents Opposed to Relicensing of Indian Point for an extension of time to December 10, 2007 within which to file a formal Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing with Contentions and her Notice of Appearance dated November 30, 2007 were served on this 3 0 th day of November, 2007 upon the persons listed below, by first class mail and by email as shown below.

Nancy ý-uon 147 Cross Highway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel./Fax 203-938-3952 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Email: ocaamail@nrc.izov Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: Ijml@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: rew@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: kdl12@nrc.gov

Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: hearingdocket@ nrc.Rov N

Susan Shapiro, Esq.

21 Perlman Drive Spring Valley NY Email: Palisadesart@aol.com Sherwood Martinelli Friends United for Sustainable Energy USA, Inc.

351 Dykman Street Peekskill NY 19566 Email: roycepenstinger@aol.com Michael J. Delaney Vice President-Energy New York City Economic Development Corporation 110 William Street New York NY 10038 Email: mdelaney@nvcedc.com

Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.

Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: setenrc.gov lbs3Pnrc.gov, bnml@nrc.gov Arthur J. Kremer, Chairman New York AREA 347 Fifth Avenue, Suite 508 New York NY 10016 Email: kremerCa-area-alliance.org Zachary S. Khan, law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Email: zxkl@nrc.gov Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

MORGAN, LEWIS, BOCKIUS, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20004 Email: ksutton@morganlewis.com Pbessettegmorganiewis.com martin.o.neilI@cmorganiewis.com Manna Jo Greene Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

112 Little Market Street Poughkeepsie NY 12601 Email: Mannaio@clearwater.org