ML19344D920

Forwards Response to Questions in Re Nuclear Power Plants.Every Effort Being Made to Ensure Continued Protection of Public Health & Safety Around All Nuclear Power Plants

ML19344D920
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/06/1980
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Nettleton W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 8008260356
Download: ML19344D920 (7)

Text

.-

/

'\\

• UNITED STATES

[' 3 h

)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

['

E W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%, +... 4 AUG 6 1980 Mr. Will Nettleton East Genoa Road Locke, New York 13092

Dear Mr. Nettleton:

Ttis is in response to your letter dated April 19, 1980.

In your letter, you raised 13 specific questions concerning nuclear power plants.

Detailed responses to all of your questions are contained in Enclosure 1.

Since many of your questions deal with NRC's review of a technical report by the University of Heidelberg, we have enclosed a sumary of the draft NRC staff review (NUREG-0668, Sumary, Enclosure 2). The full report is contained in Enclosure A of Enclosure 1.

This draft report has been issued for public

' formation and public coment.

I apure you that every effort is being made to ensure the continued protection of th health and safety of the public, not only at the Rancho Seco nuclear power,' ant, but also at all nuclear power plants.

I hope that the enclosed informathn will be helpful.

Sincerely, 0F6ars:gedsy E. G Cna arold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1.

Detailed response to specific questions w/ enclosures A-M 2.

Draft NUREG-0668, Sumary a

THIS DOCUMENf CONTAINS 6

POOR QUAUTY PAGES getas"3

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Question 1:

Doesn 't the NRC use this same research data in detemining its soil-to-plant transfer factors?

Response

NRC 's soil-to-plant transfer f actors (i.e., those contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109) are derived fran a study by Y.C. Ng for the University of California Radiation Laboratory under contract to the AEC. That study is entitled, " Predictions of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear Devices, Handbook for Estimating the Maximum Internal Dose from Radionuclides Released to the Biosphere." The Heidelberg Report

• incorrectly referenced this wort by deleting the authors names.

Prior to Chairman Ahearne signing the final copy of our letter to Congressman McCormick, the Heidelberg Report 's incorrect reference to Ng 's work was discovered.

Our final letter to Congressman McComick did not contain the passage that you quoted (i.e., "However, the WYHL report did not reference the major work upon which NRC bases it soil-to-plant transfer values").

Question 2:

What are the major studies the NRC Jses to detemine which transfer factors are used in their models?

Res Wnse:

The models in Regulatory Guide 1.109 are subject to continuing review by th5 NRC staff. Occasionally, changes are incorporated in a revised Regulatory Guide. For example, Regulatory Guide 1.109 was last revised in October 1977.

As stated in our response to question 1, the values for soil-to-plant transfer factors in Regulatory Guide 1.109 are based on the study by Y.C. Ng.

In addition, the nuclear plant environs are routinely sampled to ensure that no unanticipated build-ups 6f radioactivity are oc-curring.

Question 3:

Did you correspond with the Heidelberg group requesting any refer-l ences to help you evaluate the report before you corresponded with l

Congressman McComick?

Response

The NRC staff obtained copies of more than 50 references in the l

Heidelberg Report. The references that were obtained were judged by the NRC staff to be sufficient to review the mora important

• In earlier drafts, the NRC staff referred to this report. as *he Wyhl Report.

However, recent popular reference to this report has been to the Heidelberg i

Report.

t

~

_2 aspects of the Heidelberg Report. However, to be certain that important infomation is not overlooked, we have had one meeting t:ith some of the authors of the Heidelberg Report to discuss the repo rt.

More meetings are anticipated but at this time have not been arranged.

Question 4:

If the WYHL report is based upon studies more recent than the ones the NRC uses for transport factnrs; isn 't it possible the WYHL report 's findings might be more reliable than the values presently used by the NRC?

Response

Although the Heidelberg Report includes some studies that are more recent than the Y.C. Ng study, the Heidelberg Report uses values for soil-to-plant transfer of cesium and strontium that are based on soil and plant characteristics that maximize transfer frm soil to plants.

It is NRC philosophy to use factors that lead to conservatively realistic dose estimates (i.e., NRC estimated doses are probably higher than actual doses but not more than a factor of 2 or 3). The Heidelberg Report's use of maximum values for soil-to-plant transfer factors in series with higher than average values for many other parameters (e.g., quantity of a radionuclide released from the plant, and period of buildup of activity in soil) leads to environmental concentrations of radionuclides and doses that are very unlikely to occur. Although it is possible to have a higher-than-average soil-to-plant transfer value at a particular site, it is unlikely that all other factors will also be simulta-neously maximized. The NRC requires enviromental monitoring at at each reactor site to ensure that estimated concentrations are not exceeded.. Examples of the Heidelberg Report maximization of soil-to-plant transfer factors are contained in Chapter 5 of NUREG-0668(EnclosureA).

Question 5:

Why would the head of th'e Radiological Health Services of the State of California, or any other state for that matter, have these types of feelings and attitudes about the NRC and other Federal 1

agencies that deal with the nuclear issues? It sounds as though l

Joe is intimidated by NRC authority. You should follow this up l

l and see why there's such a lack of comnunication between the NRC and the State and local agencies you are supposed to wort 1

with and assist.

Response

There is no lack of connunication between the Program Director, I

of an Agreement State 's Radiation Control Program and the l

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In fact, there is a routine, i

i l

alnost daily, exchange of infomation.

(See Enclosure B for a background statement on the Agreement State Program.) This routine exchange of infomation covers many different subjects of radiological significance and interest to the State and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

California is an Agreemer.t State and Mr. J.0. Ward heads the State 's Radiation Cohtrol Program, which has regulatory authority over certain classes of nuclear material, i.e., source, byproduct, and small quantities of special nuclear na Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended jerial, as defined in the The act specifically requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to retain authority and responsibility with respect to regulation of nuclear power plants.

Thus, the Radiation Control Program in California has authority over "agreeme'nt materials," while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has regulatory authority over nuclear power plants.

The effluent emissions of radionuclides from nuclear power plants are nomally regulated and monitored at the point of release fran the plant.

This is far more effective than attempting to measure and monitor these small quantities after they have reached the environment.

With regard to the part of your question concerning strontium-90, you stated that you reviewed the first quarter report of 1979 for Rancho Seco and found Sr-90 levels up to 20 pCi/l of milk. We have reviewed the Sr-90 concentrations in milk samples for the entire year of 1979 (see Enclosure C). The highest average Sr-90 concentration in milk for any quarter was 4.9 pCi/1. The highest average Sr-90 concentration in milk for the first quarter was 4.8 pCi/1, not the 20 pCi/l that you referenced. The Rancho Seco i

environmental report did not give values of Sr-90 in milk for individual samples, but rather average values for a particular i

location.

The concentration of Sr-90 in milk samples taken from the vicinity of Rancho Seco can be put in perspective by comparing them with Sr-90 concentrations in milk due to fallout from nuclear weapons tests. Strontium-90 concentrations in milk due to fallout from nuclear weapons, tests can be derived from the UNSCEAR Report (see 1Available in " Nuclear Regulatory Legislation t5 rough the 95th Congress, 2nd Session," May 1979, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 l

i i

l

. Table 4 of Enclosure D) in the following manner. UNSCEAR reports Sr-90 levels in milk from about 1 to 70 pCi of Sr-90 per gram of cal ciun. Using a conversion factor of 1 g of Ca/l of milk (this value is derived from Enclosure E), the Sr-90 levels in milk due to fallout from nuclear explosions are in the range of about I to 70 pCi/ liter, depending on the time period and the country. For the years 1966 to 1975, the Sr-90 levels in milk due to fallout in the U.S. varied from about 4 to 12 pCi/ liter, depending on location and year. The Sr-90 levels (i.e., about 5 pCi/l) in milk reported at Rancho Seco are well within the range of values (4 to 12 pCi/1) derived from the UNSCEAR Report for fallout from r.uclear weapons tests.

Question 6:

Why should a governor of a State have to fear Federal preemption over a duty and responsibility given to them by our United States Constitutisn?

Res ponse:

We cannot answer a question concerning the fear of Federal pre-emption with respect to the regulation of nuclear power plants because we have no knowledge of or reason to believe that such a situation exists. We can, however, point out that the Congress has placed the authority and responsibility for the regulation of nuclear power plants in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; indeed, Section 274(c) of the, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, forbids the Commission from entering into any agreements that provide for discontinuance of any authority, and requires that the Commission shall retain authority and responsibility, with respect to regulation of nuclear power plants.

Question 7:

Would the NRC pre-empt Governor Brown if he did use his emergency power to shut down the Rancho Seco nuclear facility?

Response

Clearly, the Congress has provided the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, through the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, with the authority and responsibility for licensing and regulation of nuclear power reactors.

The exercise of the right of pre-emption with regard to the operation of a nuclear power plant is so highly speculative in concept as to be beyond the formulation of any rational answer in this response. Any answer to this hypothetical question would depend on a variety of unknown facts, issues, and understandings of circumstances surrounding any such situation.

Question 8:

Would you send me the report itself or the title and code numbers of the evaluation you are preparing on the Wyhl Report?

Res ponse:

A copy of Draft NUREG-0668 is Enclosure A.

er y

c y,-

,w-s u,.

.w

. Cuestien 9:

What are the titles and code numbers of the fmC cf fsite mcnitcrin; reports?

Response

The fGC staff's Branch Technical Position on offsite radiolcgical monitoring is contained in Enclosure F.

The NRC requires the licen-see, in this case the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, to conduct an environmental monitoring program that at least meets the minimum standards as described in the Branch Technical Position.

Reports are submitted to NRC on at least an annual basis.

Indi vidual licensee reports are available in the NRC Public Document Roo,.1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20555, and in local document rooms located near each licensed facility.

Enclosure C contains excerpts from the 1979 Annual Report for Rancho Seco concerning Sr-90 levels in milk. Reports for other years should be available for inspection at your local document room.

Question 10: Have you received a copy of " Infant Mortality Changes Following the Three Mile Accident" by E.J. Sternglass? If so, have you done an evaluation or a follow-up in reference to its findings? If you haven 't received a copy yet, I 'd be pleased to send you one.

Res ponse:

Dr. R. Gotchy and Mr. R. Goldsmith of the NRC staff have analyzed the Sternglass paper.

In addition, Dr. S. Book of Lawrence Livennore Laboratory has also reviewed this paper.

The independent analyses of Gotchy, Go)dsmith, and Book are contained in Enclosures G, H, and I, respectively. These analyses of the radiobiological, physiological, and epidemiological aspects of the paper conclude that there is no scientific validity to the Sternglass allegations.

Recently,we learned that some of the data that Sternglass used, i.e., the number of infant deaths for July,1979, was published incorrectly by the National Center for Health Statistics (Enclosure J). This fact renders invalid the statistical basis for Sternglass '

contention that infant mortality has increased since the TMI accident (Enclosure K).

You may also be interested in a press release from the Pennsylvania Cepartment of Health which discusses infant mortality in the state (Enclosure L). This press release states that Dr. N11er, Pennsylvania Secretary of Health, issued a preliminary report on fetal and infant deaths within ten miles of Three Mile Island, which "shows no statistically significant difference in the mortality rate than for the state as a whole."

. Question 11: Are the decay products of the noble gases (Sr-90, Cs-137, etc.)

being released from nuclear reactors being calculated into the overall radioactive load to the environment (especially curicus about the crippled TMI 2)?

Response

The decay products (Sr-90 and Cs-137) of the noble gases are a small fraction of the quantities of Sr-90 and Cs-137 that are released directly as fission products.

Consequently, the doses from the decay products of the noble gases are an insignificant fraction of the total dose estimates frm all radionuclides released from a reactor or from the noble gases released. This fact applies to routine reactor cperation as well as to the TMI Unit 2 accident.

Question 12: Would you send me the procedures for filing a properly prepared petition or where I may find that infomation?

Response

Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 2.206 contains infomation regarding fi'ing a properly prepared petition.

(See Enclosure M.)

Question 13: Why should people accept an energy system or policy that requires (and forces them against their will) them to live in constant fear of catastrophy, and to accept evemore restrictions of their rights and liberties?

Response

The use of nuclear reactor produced energy as a means of providing energy for the U.S.

needs was selected only after a mechanism was set up to ensure the health and safety of the public. This mechanism, of which the U.S. N.R.C. is a principal component, was mandated by the U.S. Congress and is supported by the Executive and Judicial branches of the U.S. goverranent.

Your question is actually of basic societal concern.

If your views are shared by a substantial number of people, then it is up to the U.S. Congress to respond. However, under existing laws, the U.S.

i N.R C. is charged with ensuring the health and safety of the general public.

i I

,,_.,a,-.,

,,y v.

v.

r

--,-m----

l.

Will (Tho Fool) Nottleton East Genoa Road Locke, New York 13092 April 19, 1980 Lee V. 3ossick Executive Director for Operations

!!uclear Regulatory Co==ission Washington D.C. 2c555 (301) 492-7000

Dear Lee,

Hello, I have a few questions and co==ents regarding your cor-respondence with Congressman Mike McCor=ack concerning the Washing-ton Post article, " Are Nuclear Power Plants Unsafe-Even Without Hishaps.".( December 10, 1979 Information Report-SEcY-79-653 ) I al-so have some questions concerning other topics.

I would like to refer to co=ments you ( NRC ) =ade.on page two paragraph two of the' November 27,1979 draft to Congressman McCormack.

It deals with the transport factors for the passage of radionuclides from soil into plants. You point out that the WYHL report uses soil-to-plant transfer factors up to 1000 times higher than current NRC values. In your wording, you imply that the WYEL report's research should not be considered valid. You stated, " However, the WYHL re-port did not reference the major work upon which NRC bases its soil-to-plant transfer values." On page 37 paragraph four of the WYEL re-port it does =ention that, " Most of the work on which the present reco==endations of the Radiation Protection Co==1ssion ( SSK ) and the computed values of the Bavarian Biological Testing Institute

( EEV ), Association for Reactor Safety ( GRS ), and the Industrial Supervisory Association ( TUV ) are based, was perfor=ed at the end of the 1950's and early and middle 1%O's u Americal atomic bo=b re-search centers ( reviews in USNRC, 1976; Baker, 1976 Fletcher, I.F.

et al., 1971 and elsewhere )."

Question 1: Doesn't the NRC use this same research data in de-ter=ining its soil-to-plant transfer factors?

Question 2: What are the major studies the NRC uses tb determine which transfer factors are used in their models?

Question 3: Did you correspond with the Heidelberg group request-ing any references to help you evaluate the repor' before you cor-responded with Congressman McCormack?

po? $d O&d 7

_,,_c.

,m

_-.m.

(2)

You stated the following, " The =ain conclusion of our review of the WYdL report is that the WYEL report's dose estimates are un-realistically hich when compart.d.to dose estimates based on models used by HRC staff. These NRC models have been shown to be a reason-able rearesentation (?) of the behavior of radionuclides in the en-vironment." These sentences dbn't sound like statements of scientist

( the seekers of knowledge and* truth through scientific inquiry ),

but instead by people trying to bationalize their own position. It implies the WYHL report is invalid. It implies that the NRC models are reasonable and correct. Itealso implies very strongly that the

!!2C should be considered the final authority on such subjects. Af ter suggesting the WYHL reports findisgs are unrealistic, you turn right around with the line, " These NRC'models have been shown to be a reasonable representation of the b'havior of radionuclides in the en-e vironment," without any refereness to studies that would varify such a statement. That's the very-thit'ge you accused the Heidelberg group of doing. This severe inconsistency is further demonstrated in the following, " Infact, NRC soil-to-plant transfer factors for the two radionuclides were based largely as experiments done by scientist in other countries, ( Australiar England, Japan and Russia ) rather than the United States Atomic Ene'r'gy Cokaission scientists You plearly defend the work done by.other countries, but then strongly imply that the WYHL report is weak or invali'd? You did this before you had thoroughly reviewed the report. That in itself is quite unsientific.

I would like to back-step to page one paragraph two for a moment.

This is dealing with receivin6 a topy of the WYHL report July 1978, and what considerations it was'giveh. " A preliminary review, based on discussions with Swiss scientist *, indicated that the report show-ed high values for calculated doses to people without offering any evidence of environmental measurements to support the corresponding predictions of high concentratient:Of radionuclides in environmental media. Thus there was no immediate ubed to have the document trans-lated to perform a more detailed review." Again you assume the values you presently use are somehow the coerect values. And again you ac-cept a point of view of foreign: scientists. ( Maybe because these

(3)

Swiss scientists support your present position? ) After seeing those high values, it see=s to =e, you should have been discussing the re-port with its authors, not a third party. To dispell a report, whose subject =atter is so important, just because it does not co= ply with your expectations is really inexcusable.

Question 4: If the WYHL report is based upon studies = ore recent than the ones the NRC uses for transport factors; isni c it possible the JYHL report's findings =ight be = ore reliable than the values presently used by the NRC7 On page three paragraph two you state, " Experience with =any plant years of operating data showed that radiostrontiu= related to nuclear plants was detected at insienificant levels or not at all in environ = ental sa=ples. Strontiu=-90 frc= world-wide fallout was be-in; detected at very low concentrations in environ = ental sa=;1es; however, these low concentrations of fallout strontiu=-90 = asked the

resence of the even lower concentrations of any plant-related stron-tiu= ^O, thus the environ = ental radiostrontiu= =onitoring progra=

was un;roductive and will no longer be required." The idea of nuclear to=b testing fallout being responsible for the strontiu=-90 concen-trations around nuclear facil tes =ust be questioned., Strontiu=-90 has been found in higher concentrations around nuclear facilities than elsewhere. Yet its rs=ained the policy of the NRC to tell the

~

, ublic these higher concentrations are fro = ato:ic bo=b testing.

1. hile in California I went to the State Health Depart =ent and read so=e of the current reports dealing with = ilk sa=ples ~taken frc=

around the Rancho Seco nuclear facility. In the first quarter report of 1979, I found strontiu=-90 levels as high as 20pC1/1.' There is a very frustrating story behind this. I went to see the report in the

=iddle of dece=ber. The report was handed to =e in the plastic wrap-per it had been = ailed in. The report had co=e out in late April or early May and had not even been reviewed. When I pointed this out to Joe Ward, head of Radiological Health Services, he did nothing about it. At an OES ( Office of Emergency Services ) Hearing, a =e=ber of the anti-nuclear group People United Against Rancho Seco ( PUARS )

atte=pted to place Joe Ward under citizen's arrest for not doing his

~

I

-~

e s

(4) job. The procedure wasn't carried out correctly so Joe wasn't arrest-ed. A few weeks after the OES Hearing Joe told senber of PUARS that he didn' t do or say anything about the high concentrations of stron-tium-90, because he felt that nothing would be done about it even if he did point it out to the NRC.

Question 5: Why would the head of the Radiological Health Ser-vices of the State of California, or any other state for that matter, have these types of feelings and attitudes about the NRC and other federal agencies that deal with the nuclear issues?

It sounds as thogh Joe is intimidated by NRC authority. You should follow this up and see why there's such a lack of communication be-tween th.e MRC and the state and local agencies you are supposed to work with and assist.

The story gets more troubling, however. PUARS sat-in a Governor Jerry Brown's office from November 28,1979 ' til January 8,1980 day and night. We did a petition drive requesting that Governor Brown use his emergency powers to shut down the nuclear facility at Rancho Seco. We met with him twice. The first time we met with Jerry he said he didn't have enough,information about the reactor. So we ( PUARS )

went through as much information concerning Rancho Seco as we could det our hands on. So now armed with vast quantities of information on structual flaws, security inadequacies, operating discrepancies, off-site contamination problems and other facts that should have at least merited a more extensive investigation by state or federal agencies.

'7e went back to see Governor Brown for the second time. He was quite amazed about the amount of information we collected, but it really didn' t do us any good. He told us he could not use his emergency pow-ers to shut down the reactor, because his decision to do so would be pre-empted by the NRC. He also said that because of his political position, he didn't want to go to court with the NRC. So here you have it, the governor of California ( whose sworn duty is to protect the health and safety of the people of the state ) and the only anti-nuclear presidential candidate totally intimidated by NRC authority.

Here you have one of the most powerful pensons, on the state level, very frustrated about wanting to take action, but totally intimidated by the NRC. This fear of loss of job or political position, on the

---..___--,.---,--.----,___--pma p,,

---

_ - - -pg,,. -

,m-

--_. s

_a

---m,,-

,y--i e-

(5) part of our elected and appointed officials, has forced them into a position of not wanting to even deal with the nuclear issue.

)

Question 6: Why should a governor of a state have to fear feder-al pre-emption over a duty and responsibiliy given to them by our United States Constitution?

i Question 7: Would the NRC pre-empt Governor Brown if he did use his emerrency power to shut down the Rancho Seco nuclear facility?

Just 3 few more comments about stron)1um-90. As time goes on, the concentration of strontium-90 around nuclear reactors will in-crease. The half-life ( 28 3 years ) is long enough so that ic will over time accumulate and also be biologically magnified in the food web. Because of not wanting nuclear reactors near population centers

( evidence indicating that reactors are dangerous ), we have put them in rural areas. These rural settings are also usually agricultural areas. If the reactors regularly release even small amounts of stron-tium-90 over their life expectancies, it will expose our food soure-es to strontium-90 that would not normally be there.

The nuclear bom'o testing did show us that strontium-90 does ad-versely effect our health. Any amounts of strontium-90 added to the load of toxins we have already dumped into our environment, over life expectancies of any nuclear facility shoul be considered significant.

Question.8: Would you send me the report itself or the title and code numbers of the evaluation you are preparing on the WYHL re-port?

Question 9: What are the titles and code numbers of the NEC off-site monitorin6 reports?

Question 10: Have you received a copy of n Infant Mortality Chan-ges Following the Three Mile Accident " by E. J. Sternglass? If so, have you done an evaluation or a follow-up in reference to its find-inss? If you haven't received a copy yet I'd be pleased to send you one.

Question 11: Are the decay products of the noble gases ( Sr-90, Cs-137 etc. ) being released from nuclear reactors being calculated into the over-all radioactive load to the environment ( especially curious about the crippled TMI unit 2 )

Question 12: Would you send me the urocedures for filing a pro-perly prepared petition or where I may find that information?

X J: --

-- ' X _ _.,_ -

(6)

Thoughts of fear and frustration are on the minds of many people over the nuclear issue. I have a fear that out of anxiety and frus-tration there will be continual increases of social upheaval and vio-lence caused by the use of nuclaar ' energy. It is a moral obligation of all informed people to try and prevent this from happening. I hope as human beings, the commissioners understand that it is not on-ly their governmental duty, but also a moral obligation to help pre-vent the use of violence by anyone involved in the nuclear issue.

This includes the NRC, the military, nuclear industry, and police as well as the American people. Perhaps the most important duty of the l'RC is to assist local and state governments in protecting the health and ' afety of the people from nuclear radiation. If this can not be s

done within our Constitutional rights ( at present, it appears we will need a military or police-state if we intend on using nuclear energy ),

it becomes your duty to stop the use of nuclear energy. I'm trying to tell you ( in the most direct way possible without sounding threat-ening -) that if you continue supporting the nuclear industry and nuc-lear development above and beyond helping to protect the health and safety of the people from nuclear radia?. ion ( which is what the NRC appears to be doing ), then you will be responsible for the violence, social upheaval and possible civil or revolutionary war that might result from the continued use of nuclear energy.

Question 13: Why sHould people accept an energy system or policy that requires ( and forces them against their will ) them to live in constant fear of catastrophe, and to accept ever more restrictions of their rights and liberties?

Many people in this country have lost faith in our 'present gov-ernment because of the NRC ( and' other governmental agencies ) in-sensitivities to their concerns about nuclear energy. Many people feel lied to, cheated and deceived, and at the same time afraid of the NRC and the federal government and what it has become. And now af ter the Thre.e Mill Accident people are damn mad. Many are afraid to speak out against nuclear energy in fear that something might happen to them if they did. And there are even more people who are deeply concerned about nuclear power, but have so work so hard just to make ends meet that they don!t have time or the energy to active-ly voice their opinions. I now underetand peoples fears to speak out ede

.w ee.,.---

==

(7) l against nuclear power.

I'm writing this because there was a recent out-break of vio-lence that supports this fear people have about speaking out. FUAR3 took part in a NRC ( SAL 3 ) Hearings that was held in Sacramento, California in the middle of February and delt with the safety of the Rancho Seco nuclear reactor. A few comments about PUARS. It is a col-lective of individuals, mostly from Northern California. I'm the on-ly member that's not from California. PUARS has a core group of ten or twelve people. Its main philosophy is one of non-violence in thought, deed or action. During the Hearings, White Cloud and I were illegally arrested for standing in a silent vigil behind Beth Bow-ers,' Fred Shen and Rick Cole; members of the NRC. I'd like you to know what I was charged <tth it's kind of funny.

" 711111am R. Nettleton did enter the Federal Building at 2o00 Cottage Way, Sacra = ento, California, to attend a meeting of the NRC to talk to the commission about the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant.

lettleton was allowed to speak, but refused to leave the podium when his alloted time was up. Nettleton continued to disrupt the meeting by walking around the meeting room chanting prayers, holding a Bible, and touching people in the meeting room on the head. Nettleton refused to leave the meeting room after several request to do so. "

The persons that wrote this were not even present at the Hearing.

I didn't have a Bible, I wasn't walking around chanting and the only person I touched was a good friend that came to the meeting with me.

Enclosed is a picture showing you what I did get arrested for. "ihite Cloud was arrested because he told the police. a would take my place if I were arrested. It appears to me that the people that wrote up the complaint were intentionally trying to make us out as some re-11gious freaks or a couple of crazy people.. I can assure ycu we are neither of those.

We were trying to bring it to the attention of Beth, Fred and Rick that; 1) the scope of the Hearings had been limited so much that they did not adequately cover enough of the safety issues in light of the TMI accident, 2) the Hearings were not actually public Hearings, because there were no interveners on behalf of the public

( F0E dropped out just a few days before the Hearings, because of how limited they had become ) 3) we were trying to warn them that S

?.

(8) frustrations were building up, because of people's concerns over the effects of low level radiation, and 4) we told them that we would support thee as human beings, but not NRC officials.

We were not just trying to get media attention. What we' wanted to do is touch the NRC officials in a light and humane way. There were ( and still are ) some members of the group planning a citizen's arrea*, against people that have the authority.to shut down Hancho Seco. Before the citizen's arrest was tried, some very serious things happened to PUARS. ( I left before most of this happened so you're getting it second hand ) PUARS's office was broken into with an axe.

Some of the windows were kicked out at night. The group was receiv-ing all kinds of threatening phone calls. About the time all this was coing on Ed Benson, a member of the group,was found ten miles out-side of Sacramento dead. He was found along a four lane highway out in the middle of nowhere. The police report was accidental ('ath, he was hit by a car. I hope they are right about it just being an accident.

It just doesn't add up though. What would Ed be doing ten miles out of town. He didn't have a car and he always told someone when he went somewhere. Af ter all this the group dispersed, partly from fear and partly from a feeling of helplessness.

It's these kinds of events that adds to the fears and frustration-s and the possibilities,of further violence. There are some people i

in this country today that are just looking for reasons to rational-ize and justify their violent behavior. The violent attacks on FUARS me=bers appears to be related to their involvement in the NRC Hear-ings. You should ( for your own protection ) seriously consider in-vestigatinc thesa attacks to see if there was, infact, any connections.

Let's face it, the nuclear issue touches so many facets of our society, that we' re all in this together. We' ve got quite a nuclear problem on our hands and it's going to take all of us to come up with the creative answers we need to solve this problem. During this day and age when there is such a need for improved human understanding and communication, these out-breaks of violence ma: ) it much more dif-ficult for the various factions of our society to work together. We have been taught in this country that might makes right, and force O

6 9

(9) and violence can be used for social control. ( history shows us that the use of force and violence for social control leads to revolution )

We must crow beyond this simple mentality if we, as a species, plans on survivinc on this Earth, heueraber that we are all human beings first, last and always.

When we start perceiving eachother as things ( NRC officials, anti-nukers, armies, police etc. ) we forget we are all human beings, and have a social and moral obligation to care for one another. Most of the frustrations and violence are now being directed towards nameless, faceless things, without any thought or consideration that those name-less, faceless creations are composed of whole other unique human be-ings. If we actively work at communicating directly towards one an-other as sensitive, thoughtful creatures; we can minimize or possibly eli=inate this unproductive fear, frustration and violence. Begin to

~

stop producing toxins ( toxins are a form of violence against all life )

start healing the Earth, each other, and once again have reverence for the Sacred Nature of Life.

/

' p,.

f

/

e af

• ew,

,y fa.

O a.

i

,ff.sM.J.

2 e..

g,. g,, ~.

k,

. n 7;A ; d.p,'Ti t-f

{

-

• wt

\\

4 5'.~.

j' s.,4

,. -f N

~~

^

[ % s,.sE'~

. ~..

~~h}.

g.

i

)

L.p i

n

)

C3 I

A..w.

?

u

. N,A. i Xe 1 5 sq h

H

-Q w ' N a) 4 e.-

r.

pg

~.

t W$

• ~,.r---

g..

m 4m _ _ ;

e. - '7

'~'

i W

. ~. 6, :

,e s

8,'

1 f

4 i

+ & -.EJa*u ~

856

q ago 3-y e _3_

0,--

.j 2.

Al.

y=9 O

a :a 2-u 0 g; j

~

j 0-

$2E 7"I CT

• C C

c=c

$ e*

E

• i C

2 omo y_

4.

w m>

F g fj a

o t

"E N

? !>

b $m M-Et m

+ w~r r$,

u.

' A "a g

. E... g g s;,

34=

4 h _a

.g i g 3

. u.-

. ~..w

-d g

.. g f'.

,y fJ c

6

e'i.,

w*

.t G G

• ~

~

.p'

$gV b

g3 %

m I

' f.A'

?*

^

...=W o'

j e

t

.u

.re...e u w

e w

2:

2 d.r-

..g.

.Z 3 8

=--

%5 E O

e 6[e i

n 4id r e m p_.

M? 7+ih'.*E.. $;;',?. ' 3 E Z W

g m

~..

,,.., ~.

..,_,._n..

i 6,

l l

l l

i l

BUSINESS, PAGES 6-8,,

- l i

L Protesters arrested'i i

7 4"-

?,

j!,

E t NRC hearingi j 3

a lentimony rarely dealt wNb the spcific palety lainess the3 L2 ant,-nuclear protesters i

By PAUI, BARNES i

T'Vas ::"e:O";.1, r,ie.d. el.e zero, ic l

'=a==<

i 4

Two entipiaclear protesters were arrested Tuesday Sacramente, appeared as a member of leis public..HC.

g e

during a Nuclept itegulatory Cesaminaleep heerlag gag was one of Ilie parties crisiaany responsible for ther M%$h ggg5av r

charged with disturbing the federal seesttag.

hearge but withdrew on Feb.18. Two other part@

Sacrammato Municipal Utilky District board seemiq, Witt Nettleton and a suma identifying bimacif se j,

tilate Cloud were taken lato cumsedy by shortira Gary llurah and Rick Castro, withdrey on Feb. 6 at ;),,

F,h*84 I* day 1 decide.

She said, however, that la her 1

prehearing conference.

l depulles alter a cittaga's arred by a lederal escuruy Vandervelden told line pensi, "No,' ape is more.'*,

Rancho Seco outalde of himian error."

the public's percepHon.ts one of "a

• Roger Seal, however, 4 eld up board I

guard.

frustrated than l about havlag to withdraw. Ne one has.

s Ih48 th8 mere estatence of,evacuatloa truul" cosalag frosut the NRC.

i Tuesday was the first gley of putdic testismony la waaled these tiearings emers talaa I) ave."

i heitlegs called to discuss safety sapects'el the Reache

. lie said he withdrew la part because he believes the,

plass for, nuclear planta 14 pre 9 they are. released "concenarst' circ f

Whke Cloud told the panel that be-had dangerous..

. Secs nuclear plant operstlos.

papel has already deterplaed Nanche Seco le safe.He said he hoped the panel would give "a rigoroue.{,

Jeha Mehos, esecutive vice president phen I Canw into thle'meellag.' These l

The arresta came after a lunch break when the two snea refused la leave the stand where three gaembers of ' saminatten of Ranche Sece's safety " addlag "Who'q j,el the Sacramente Metropolttaa Chamber. circles are estending to a 156 mile redl es i

e of Commerce, said that electric power' frees here."

the Safety and t.lceaansig BoarJ of the NRC sat.

gelag to hellere it if you fled Se plaat le safe le,

Ellaabetti Bewers anhed Nettleton te leave, and when was necessary go is(erent new bupleess la The sangic was nati-maaclear la nature eperatef*

• Russ Miner, a forsner employes of Pacliac Gas &,

, pearea.

and destgaed to gain stapport for that he would suit, she adjourned the asentleg.

j Netueton said he was keeplag *.*a ellent vigil" by Electric Co., sold that Northere Cal 68erata needs Raa.

,e -

• H tahee a high degree of arrogance le, snevement, accordaag to White Cloud. -

I ttanding behind the panel. He wpe jelped by White che Sece and IMahle Canyon (PG&E's nuclear plaat that..

9 pre esapt these esperts wbe are devettag The hearings wul continue wlah puhuc ii Chead as deputies arrtved.

hee met )een licensed) le provide lige electrical aseds e(,

l lheir life to stuclear power," Kehoe said.. testimony at 8:3e a m. leday in Roosa.W-

{

I I

The depullee dragged the two men from lies reens, the area.

g Virglala Muese, representing the ll48 of the Federal Buddlag at teos Imgue of Woenen Veters la Sacraseente,. fettage Way.

handcuffed They refused to walk He said that with heut planta down. PG&E would-f l said her group esasalmed energy sources ' Technical lentismosiy lo i e presented Nettletoa amt Whhe Cloud were being held la the have to bura St. sus barrels e( ou por day le make up thof county jail wuhout ball unut a federal court amalgas for two years before decidlag to adapt the California Energy Commissica I

dtNerence.

thesa to a court appearance. They are charged with Ed Cesabplalade, a Jeratar SUD espployee, told thed,

, l.crea.ed ceanervatlea and give a lower S) IUD's attorneys and the NRC ** eft wel

,j "diaturbance,"'according to a theriffs dispatcher.

o pciority to nuclear power.

begle Thursday morning.

, anel, "We 16aye stever bad any real prt blems withg Fewer pen'ple. attended thee were espected, and Wie fedey 3, Col. 5

[

She anhed the panel to "give the pubHe Tettimony is expected to y for

.l p

' Bowera resumed the sneetleg after the arrests.

g the laps ** ebuut nuclear safety and let g leur weeks.

o

]

i

-