ML20129B864
| ML20129B864 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-033, CON-#385-33 OL, NUDOCS 8507290283 | |
| Download: ML20129B864 (92) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, ORIGINAL C) UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-456 50-457 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwoed Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) LIMITED APPEARANCE SESSION O LJ LOCATION: JOLIET, ILLINOIS PAGES: 278 - 368 DATE: TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1985 TM.oI
& ed&$ 6pa>lH&f &nno.
;/uj fo [ /hca n~4 - j/p / - H,d' .
O o' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Oficial Reporters 444 North Capitol Street i ggg72}{){g ggg,0g{3D6 Washington, D.C. 20001 T pon (202)347 3700 ( NATroNWIDE COVERACE
r .
}
CR23935.1 278 ERT/Gjg ! I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x l :
5 In the Matter of: : COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : Docket No. 50-456 6 : 50-457 (Braidwood Nuclear Power : 7 Station) : 8 -X 9 Joliet City Council Chambers 150 West Jefferson Street J l et, Illin is 60431 10 Tuesday, July 23, 1985 The limited appearance session in the above-entitled 12 matter convened at 7:00 p.m. () 13 BEFORE: 14 JUDGE LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C. 16 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Member j7 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D. C. 18 JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 Washington, D. C. 20 21 l 22 ! 23 i l 24 a n g e n m . ire. -- continued -- 25 l l t
l 279 j l APPEARANCES:
%J 2
- GISELA TOPOLSKI, Joliet, Illinois
! 3 EVERETT J. QUIGLEY, Kankakee, Illinois RON HAFNER, Godley, Illinois 5 DIANE CHAVES, Rockford, Illinois 6 JOSEPH TALARICO, Joliet, Illinois y HARRY EUSES, Rockford, Illinois 8 LEROY BLACK, Joliet, Illinois STANLEY CAMPBELL 9 ALYSON BOMAN CONN, Rockford, Illinois 10 11 12 l 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
- s neoo,wes, i .
25
23935.1 280
,s , CRT t 1
'J l PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE BRENNER: Good evening. I would like to 3 introduce ourselves to begin. We are the three-member 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated by the 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to preside in the operating 6 license hearing involving the Braidwood Nuclear Power 7 Station. On my left is Judge Richard F. Cole, who has a 8 doctorate in environmental engineering and water resources; 9 on my right is Judge Dixon Callihan, who is a nuclear 10 physicist, with a doctorate in physics. I am Lawrence 11 Brenner, and I am the lawyer chairman of this board. 12 The meeting. tonight presents an opportunity for ( 13 members of the public to make oral statements before us. 14 In addition, we provide the opportunity for written
~15 statements and for any of you who have written statements 16 tonight, we can receive them tonight.
17 In addition, we can receive written statements 18 in the future without any particular time limitation. 19 However, the sooner we receive any statements you might 20 wish to mail, the more assistance it will be to us as we 21 begin the formal proceedings in this case later on this 22 year, probably in october. 23 You can submit a written statement, even if you 24 want to make an oral statement tonight, and any written 25 statements that you wish to mail in the future should be
}
23935.1 281 "RT (VT 1 mailed to the secretary of the United States Nuclear 2 Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. , 20555. And if you 3 indicate somewhere in that filing, preferably at the top, 4 that it relates to the Braidwood proceeding, I will be 5 sure to get copies from the secretary. 6 We are presiding in a formal trial type 7 proceeding governed by the administrative procedure act. 8 In that proceeding we have formal participants, known as 9 parties, who have opinions both in favor of and opposed to 10 the proposed operation of the Braidwood station. 11 The Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, many years ( 12 ago, received a construction permit, also as a result of O( >
- 13 proceedings before a licensing board -- a different 14 licensing board.
15 The stage we are at now is that of deciding 16 whether, in accordance with the requirements of the 17 various statutes, primarily the Atomic Energy Act and also 18 the regulations issued by the Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission, whether or not the proposed nuclear plant in 20 fact meets those regulations and statutes. 21 Under the Atomic Energy Act passed by your 22 congress -- by our Congress also, for that matter -- if 23 the plant meets those regulations, it is entitled to 24 receive a license. If it does not it is not entitled to {} 25 receive a license.
1 23935.1 282 _s CRT 1 There are various issues which have been 2 identified in the formal proceeding, and it is on those 3 issues that we will receive evidence. Those issues -- 4 some of those issues involve quality assurance of the 5 power plant's construction, emergency planning and the 6 possible effects on the nuclear plant of a nearby railroad 7 train explosion. 8 This setsion, however, is not part of the 9 formal trial type proceeding. Rather, it is an ' 10 opportunity for those present to make statements. You may 11 give your position on the issues to be decided. You may 12 propose questions you wish answered in the future by the (~- 13 utility, commonwealth Edison, or by the Muclear Regulatory 14 Commission staff or, for that matter, by the evidence in 15 the upcoming formal trial. 16 As we indicated in our notice, and many of you 17 may not have read it so I will repeat the gist of it, the 18 statements you make here are not used as evidence in the 19 proceeding, unlike the testimony that we will be receiving 20 from witnesses in the formal, legal proceeding. However, 21 to the extent matters that are raised tonight are those 22 that we, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, or 23 the utility, or other interested parties were not I 24 previously aware of, they can be followed up on, l {} 25 particularly if they are within the scope of the issues we l l
23935.1 283 BRT C 1 have admitted in the formal trial proceeding.
;! Beyond that, you are not limited to the legal 3 scope of the proceeding tonight and you may say Whatever 4 it is you wish to say.
5 I have the brief forms that have been filled 6 out by only four persons so far who wish to make oral 7 statements tonight, and I will call those names. We would 8 ask that you step up to the lectern over there, which has 9 a microphone, and the hard working court reporter Who has 10 been working all day can get your statement down more 11 accurately that way. 12 Let me ask, are there any other persons who () 13 wish to speak who have not yet filled out the form? If 14 so, please fill it out in the back -- Betty, you might 15 show them where you are. 16 If I do not pronounce your name correctly 17 please forgive me and correct the pronunciation. 18 Gisela Topolski? Is that right? 19 MS. TOPOLSKI: You said it right. 20 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm one out of one so far. 21 Could you please step up there, Mrs. Topolski? 22 MS. TOPOLSKI: I'm trying. 23 JUDGE BRENNER: You said you had a written 24 statement also. 25 MS. TOPOLSKI: Yes, I do.
)
23935.1 284 BRT 1 JUDGE BRENNER: Did you need it to read from? 2 MS. TOPOLSKI: Because that's what I would like 3 to clarify before you set your five minute watch. 4 JUDGE BRENNER: We are not going to set the 5 five minutes. 6 MS. TOPOLSKI: Aren't you? I appreciate that. 7 JUDGE BRENNER: Since you asked, we sometimes 8 limit persons to five minutes when there are a lot of 9 people who wish to speak, when there are a lot of others 10 waiting, but that won't be necessary tonight. 11 MS. TOPOLSKI: To begin with, I have to say my
. 12 name, right? Gisela Topolski, 405 South May Street, 13 Joliet, Illinois, 60436.
14 I would like to start out only to remind you, 15 we did have a meeting on the same plant on August 23, 1979, 16 docket number 50-456, and 50-457. We were allowed five 17 minutes during that time and I thought it was a little 18 unfair, because there were so many questions we would like 19 to bring up during that time. And we never had our 20 questions answered during all those years. So it came as 21 a surprise that you would here, today again, and we still 22 -- we don't know if those things which we questioned 23 during that time have been corrected, or say, for instance, 24 it dealt with shaft mines in the close vicinity of the 25 plant, it dealt with the Kankakee River, which will be }
23935.1 285 ERT O 1 used later on as drinking water; it dealt with safety when 2 it came to evacuations. And, particularly there was -- no 3 one mentioned that the hospital can handle this amount of 4 evacuating people and treat them properly. There were a 5 lot of questions which never came to us, to our homes, to 6 be answered by Commonwealth Edison or by your Nuclear 7 . Regulatory Commission. Also, transportation of nuclear l 8 waste was involved during that time, which we are l 9 concerned about, and our drinking water, our prime l [ 10 farmland, and -- I don't want to read you the whole thing. 11 I want to make it nice and short for you. 12 We are concerned and still waiting for an 13 answer. We would appreciate it, including myself, that 14 the company could answer to all those questions and mail 15 it to us so we can respond back to you, and see if we got 16 all the proper answers we were looking for. 17 The other thing is what is so frustrating is we l 18 have -- and it deals with hazardous waste -- we have the 19 Senate bill which allows the public to attend meetings and 20 start asking the questions to the company's specialists. 21 When it comes to nuclear power plants we don't have that 22 right. That means we cannot -- we feel our right has been, 23 here, a little bit violated because we do like to know a 24 little bit more about nuclear power plants, where they are 25 located, if they are safely located, so we could ask those
23935.1 286 ERT 73 ! ) x.s 1 questions to their specialists, and we cannot. It's not 2 there. 3 That's why, when you mentioned earlier 4 witnesses, I don't know how those witnesses got ahold of 5 you to become witnesses, because it never was announced 6 here, locally. There was a meeting -- where we could have 7 asked questions on the Braidwood plant and become a person 8 directly involved, instead of just reading something up to 9 you or making a notation or something like that. 10 But also, the other frustration is we wish the 11 NRC to -- I would like to put this in the record because 12 we are getting very frustrated with the language which has ('M
'uj 13 been used. I don't point directly to commonwealth Edison 14 on that, but you do cover more than one power plant, and 15 other utility companies, and I would like to read it to 16 you because I thought -- I found it very interesting.
17 "The extent to which nuclear power plants 18 endanger public health is a subject of considerable debate, 19 but there is no question that the nuclear industry is a 20 threat to the English language. Every industry has its 21 jargon designed. It often seems to separate insiders from 22 outsiders, and to help the former retain their control 23 over the situation. But, in no industry is the jargon so 24 designed to obscure the facts as it is in the nuclear (^ 25 business. U}
23935.1 287 BRT 1 Take accidents, for example. Other industries 2 may have them. The nuclear industry never does. A 3 malfunction in the plant is called a transient; a term 4 that can cover anything from a stuck valve to the ominous 5 failure of the plant's entire cooling system; unless, of 6 course, it is an event which may be anything from a 7 routine turbine trip or an unscheduled shutdown, a scram, 8 to a complete loss of reactor coolant; a plant system that 9 fails to function as it should does not malfunction, but 10 undergoes an abnormal evolution, which sounds like 11 something Darwin should have studied. 12 The malfunction itself is described as a normal 13 operation, which sounds like something out of Krafft-Ebing. 14 A threat of nuclear material is called unauthorized 15 diversion. 16 Other potentially dangerous happenings are 17 equally shrouded in euphemism, or undergo unplanned 18 hypercriticality. According to the engineers who 19 struggled with the 1979 accident at Thret Mile Island, 20 reactors cannot explode. The worst thing they can do is 21 undergo spontaneous energetic disassembly, a process in 22 which their components can be distributed uniformly over 23 several counties. 24 Some public officials have tried to end the 25 practice of atomic obfuscation and have urged that those [}
\ l \ [ 23935.1 288 '
)
1 in the nuclear business be required, as a matter of law as 2 well as public safety, to speak plain English. But those 3 who believe in calling an explosion an explosion, have 4 their work cut out for them. I 5 Some nuclear industry promoters hope, if they 6 can get away with it, to achieve a simple solution to the 7 problem of nuclear waste, to alleviate growing public 8 anxiety about this highly toxic, sometimes bomb creating 9 substance. They propose a semantic metamorphosis. It 10 really isn't a waste at all, it's nuclear bonus material." ' 11 Thank you. 12 JUDGE BRENNER: You are entertaining as well as ! 13 concerned. 14 MS. TOPOLSKI: I just put the language which 15 the companies use themselves and just tell them altogether. 16 JUDGE BRENNER: Euphemisms, I have heard them 17 too, they are entertaining. You have heard them out, I 18 heard the term " excursion", which I always thought was a l 19 nice vacation trip. 20 HMS. TOPOLSKI Right. I know. But this is 21 just the point I'm trying.to make. We would like that 22 people are honest with us, to tell us the good and tell us 23 the bad. But don't make it rosy when it's not. And we 24 are all concerned about our safety because right now, 25 gentlemen, our state right now as it is, as it stands i P
. . . . .- . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . -
23935.1 289 ERT O 1 right now, we not only are losing a lot of farmland which 2 is prime farmland, we are definitely depending on this 3 food, we depend on our drinking water, we depend on so l 4 many things. We became, lately, the dumping ground for l 5 everything, because our community lately is a little bit 6 down in the dumps, and we cannot lift it up to invite 7 decent business in here, and it's not going to make it any 8 easier on us when we just go ahead like angry and greedy 9 people. 10 This is what I'm trying to say. Thank you. 11 JUDGE BRENNER: Stay there for a moment. Let 12 me see if I can help you with some of your more serious 13 p'oints. 14 In terms of how we got to the point of having a 15 formal -- formal witnesses in the hearing, we have not yet 16 started the hearing but we have formal parties identified. 17 They took the initiative, either by grouping together or 18 individually, to do a lot of work, which is necessary to 19 participate in a formal trial litigation and it's a 20 complex litigation, unlike the' more simplified meeting 21 here tonight. By doing that work they have advanced 22 specific issues supported by specific bases, and we have 23 had many years, literally, of hearing preparation time -- 24 although some of the prehearing work has been more recent, 25 as the parties know -- but in any event we have identified
23935.1 290 BRT O V 1 the issues for the hearing. 2 It is not a simple, say, automobile accident-type 3 trial where people walk in and tell what they saw. There 4 is a lot of preparation by witnesses and preparing for the 5 hearing. So that is how we have the formal parties in the 6 hearing; and as judges, it's our job to judge the formal 7 presentation by those witnesses, and I mentioned at the 8 outset the issues that we have in the hearing. 9 We did have an issue relating to the hospital 10 adequacy in the broad sense, for emergency planning, and 11 we have found today that there really is no remaining 12 controversy with respect to that matter, subject to a 13 relatively m'inor point that we are going to get some 14 further information on. So we are satisfied on that score, 15 that is the number of hospitals that would be necessary -- 16 hospital space would be available, in our view. And I 17 wanted you to know that. 18 That number may be different than what you have 19 in mind and I can't take the time tonight to go through 20 our reasons, but we have reached that. 21 some of the other issues you raised really 22 relate to the process of the construction permit stage, 23 such as where would the plant be located, and possible 24 concern for displacement of farmland by locat.ing it there, 25 and so on. On the other issues, of course I'm not sure
a 23935.1 291 . ERT (s J- > 1 fully what you mean by them. 2 I did read the transcript of the hearings six 3 years ago -- August, 1979 -- of years ago.
, /
4 MS. TOPOLSKI: '79. 5 JUDGE BRENNER: In this very room, I believec 6' MS. TOPOLSKI: Yes, it was. , 7 e JUDGE BRENNER: And the issues you raised then.j 8 have been brought forward since then for hearing. I don't 9 know precisely what you mean by some of the subjects you 10 went through. _ 11 What.I can tell you tonight, and that is my 12 role -- not because of my role as a judge but because I'm
) 13 aware of the documents -- there is something called an 14 environmental. impact statement, actually it's called the 15 final environmental statement issued by the Nuclear 16 Regulatory Commission --
17 MS. TOPOLSKI No. 18 JUDGE BRENNER: -- you can write the Commission 19 in Washington for that copy or, better yet, check with the 20 staff counsel before you leave tonight. 21 MS. TOPOLSKI: Okay. 22 JUDGE BRENNER: Ms. Chan is over there. She 23 can get your name and address. -- either from the 24 ' transcript -- and mail you thut. I don't know if anything 25 -- any of the metters you raised rniate to something f St +n -o- -
., , N 3 A 23935.1 292 BRT i 1 called -- a little more complicated -- called a safety 2 evaluation report, but she can tell you what that involves 3 and you can decide whether you want a copy of that also.
4 MS. TOPOLSKI: Also there was mentioned shaft
< 5 mines and strip mines in '79.
? 7
/ 6 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes. I'm not sure what you o'
7 mean by it. It's not one of the issues in the hearing 8 before us. Do you want to tell me a little more about I 9 that? 10 MS. TOPOLSKI: I wasn't living here then. You 11 see I've only been her'e 13 years, when they were still - 12 coal miners -- there are still all the coal mines there () 13 and strip mines and some of them have groundwater, 14 standing groundwater in it. I only wanted to know if this g, , , 15 is going to get blocked off, or if Commonwealth Edison is 16 going to do something about that. l >17 ' JUDGE BRENNER: Your concern was because the 118 mines present a safety hazard?
'19 MS. TOPOLSKI: That's right. Because of the 20 holes. This was all holey -- openings. Just like a 21 tunnel, you know, something like that.
i 22 JUDGE BRENNER: You nean the openings are 23 dangerous because of their existence or because they could 24 -- 25 MS. TOPOLSKI: They could collapse. j i
23935.1 293 BRT 1 JUDGE BRENNER: And affect the nuclear plant? 2 MS. TOPOLSKI: It could. That's why I want to 3 know if there was something done about it. That was in 4 1979. 5 JUDGE BRENNER: I don't know. In general, the 6 adequacy of the foundation for the safety structure of the 7 plant is a very important thing that's looked at quite 8 heavily, and that may or may not be in the safety 9 evaluation report. I don't know. 10 It's not an issue that we are going to hear in 11 the formal case. Maybe Ms. Chan can help you by supplying 12 that document, in the first instance, and if it does not () 13 cover it, you might need to take it further. But I don't 14 know the answer offhand. 15 I can tell you with some reasonable assurance, 16 though, that the foundation structure has been carefully 17 looked at as it always is by the staff. 18 MS. TOPOLSKI: We were told that we would get l l 19 copies but we never got copies, or were told the procedure 20 was -- l 21 JUDGE BRENNER: You would not get personal
~
l 22 copies. Copies are placed in libraries, usually one i 23 particular library in the area known as the local public 24 document room. I don't know which one that is here. Do 25 you know, Ms. Chan? O I t l G._ - -. . - -.. - - - - -. .
23935.1 294 BRT O 1 MS. CHAN: No. I can get you the name and the 2 address. 3 JUDGE BRENNER: Ms. Laurty, do you know? 4 MS. LAURTY: There's a public document room in 5 Wilmington. 6 JUDGE BRENNER: But to the extent there are 7 extra copies around, you can get your own copy sent to you. 8 MS. TOPOLSKI: Okay. I appreciate that. 9 JUDGE BRENNER: Than'k you very much for the 10 time. Did you want to leave the written statement? 11 MS. TOPOLSKI: Yes, I do. 12 (The document follows:) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 5 (:)
Joliet July 23,1985 295-(l V PUBLIC IEARING h ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD STATEMENTS AND FACTS ON AUGUST 23,1979 THERE WAS ALREADY A NRC SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE HERE IN J0LIET, ON COMFONWEALTil EDISON UNIT'.S 1&2 DOCKET NOS. 50-456 AND 50-457. NOTHING InD CinNGED THE SITUATIONS SINCE TilAT HEARING,IT IS STILL TOO CIDSE TO POPUIATIONS AND THEG)R FARMS,CATTLES, PRIVATE WELLS, LOW LAYED POWERLINES,THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCIDENT'S, SinFT MINES AND STRIP MINES ARE STILL THERE,THE PUBLIC 'S IIEALTil WILL BE AT STAKE, TIIE COOLING POND IS RIGHT NEXT TO A FARMER,WHICH IRS HIS DAIRY CATTLE GRAZING ON IT. I AM APPALLED HOW COMMONWEALTH EVER GOT A HOLD OF Tint PIECE OF LAND,WITHOUT ANY HYdDGEOLOGY TESTINGS. NOT TOO FAR AWAY IS THE SANDWICH FAULT IDCA GROUNDWATER }DNITORING SAMPLING HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED EVER, PERMEABILITY,AND SUITABILITY STUDIES 1RS NEVER BEEN S110WN. THE AREA WAS ZONED A-L, WHICH MEANS IT8 S PRIME FARMLAND AND ONLY SHOULD BE USED AS SUCH, WE ARE IDOSING HERE IN ILLIN0IS 8 THOUSAND S AND T10USAND'S OF PRIME FARM LAND,AND WE ARE DEPENDING ON THAT FOOD. q
,/
IT WGULD NOT ONLY BE A IIEALTH RISK, BUT ALSO A HARDSHIE ON THE PEOPLE, BY NOT ONLY IDOSING THE LAND, BUT ALSO PAYING FDRE AND FDRE FOR POWERPIANTS. WE AS CONSUMER FEEL, WHEN THE COMPANY WANT *S TO OPEN A BUSINESS, THAN THEY SHOULD FOOT Tile BILL, BECAUSE WE ALEEADY PAYING NOT ONLY FOR USING ELECTRICITY, BUI ALSO FOR NEW POWER = PLANTS,AND EVERY MISTAKE IS BEING MADE. Tint IS WHAT I CALL A HARDSilIP,THEY WANT IT ALL AND STILL CAN WRITE IT OFF. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS NOT EVEN USING ALL IT 'S ELECTRICITY, COMM.ED.IS SELLING IT TO OTHER STATES. NOT TO MENTION WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH ALL THESE WASTES? WE 00T S0 MUCll 0F IT,WHICH THEY BEEN SHIPPGNG IN HERE TO FDRRIS, ILLINOIS,BUI IS ALFDST FILLED. SOIANGE THIS COMPANY DOESN'T COME UD WITH AN ANSWER WinT THEY ARE GOING TD D0 WITil ALL IT'S WASTES, THIS WOULD BE ANOTilER REASON ADDED ON NOT TO PERMIT THIS.' . LICENSE. MEN DO MSKE MISTAKES, AND LET ME TELL YOU ENOUGH OF THEM, SO WHEN YOU IDOK AT COMM. EDISON'S VIOLATION RECORD, YOU WGLL FIND ENOUGH OF THEM, INCLUDING FALLING ASLEEP ON TIIE J0B. WE ARE HERE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN AUT0 MECHANIC, WE ARE TALKING VERY HOT ST0FF OF RADIATION,1N CASE GF AN ACCIDENT.OR DOES THE NRC OR EARLIER YEARS CALLED AEC WANT TO TALK THE INCIDENT IN UIAH OR NEVADA OR THREE MILE ISIAND OUT OF OUR MINDS, BY USING THE EXCUSE NO ONE DIED YET7 THAT IS WISHFUE THINKING, BECAUSE WHEN YOU WOUID HAVE l SEEN AND IDOKED AT Tile DEATH CERTIFICATE TinN, YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THEY DIEB QUIETLY p O NO RUFDRS OF THE INCIDENT COULD HAVE BEEN SPREAD. OR DO WE InVING AN AT.TITUDE BY SAYING S ( ,lSOMEONE HAS TO DIE, SO THE OTHER CAN LIVE???? NO ONE CANM[ GOD WHO S10ULD LIVE AND WHO SHOULD DIE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THERE IS A SAYING WinT GOES Ul,i MDST COME DOWN, BUT IT NEVER COMES DOWN IN THE SAME WAY IT WENT UP.
\
IDOK AT ALL THE SAFEIY MEASURES WHICH THE COMPANY HAS PUI IN, BUT DID ANY ONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND REALLY WENT BEYOND DURING THE TIME IT WAS BUILT AND NOW
.-_-__a
PAGE 2
. 296 COVERED BY BOLTS AND NUIS,WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE? RFACTOR VESSELS AND PIPES FROM CONSIANTLY RADI0 ACTIVE BOMBARDMENT, INCREASING THE DANGER OF RUPTURES AND
~1 CATASTROPHIC ACCIDENTS DO CAN HAPPEN. MAY I REMENH YOU TIMT IN EARLY 1976 A FEDERAL (O INSP.ECTOR OF NUCLEAR POWER PIANTS RESIGNED AND CALLED FOR THE SHUTTING DOWN OF ALL THE NATION'S PIANTS BEFORE A CATASTROPHIC ACCIDENTS OCCURRED.
. ....... . . TilAT Tile FOLIDWING WEEK, TIIREE NUCLEAR ENGINEERS FROM THE GENERAL ELECTRIC NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING PIANT AT SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, ALSO RESIGNED, STATING TilEY COULD NO LONGER WORK AT DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF A TECHN0IDGY " SO DANGEROUS IT THREATENS THE VERY EXISTENCE OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET 7" PIANT RADIOACTIVITY: DID YOU KNOW THAT TIIE AVERAGE NUCLEAR REACTOR BUILT TODAY,AFTER ONE YEAR OF OPERATION, IRS RADIOACTIVITY bnNY TIMES THAT RELEASED BY THE HIROSHIMA A= BOMB?
.......TIRT RELEASE OF 10 PERCENT OF TIRT RADIOACTIVITY COULD KILL THOUSANDS,EVEN MILLIONS, DEPENDING tffML SUCH CGNDITIONS AS WEATHER, PROXIMITY TO IARGE CIIIES,ETC.?
...... TIRT SUCll A CONCENTRATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IS A TEMPTING TARGEI FOR TERRORISTS, ACTS OF WAR,AND IS VULNERABLE TO EARTHQUAKES?
THE ACCIDENT TIRT COULDN'T 1%PPEN: DID YJD( KNOW Tint THE ACCIDENT AT THE THREE MILE ISIAND PIANT NEAR IMRRISBERG, PENNSYLVANIA IN FARCH,1979,WIIICH SEVERELY DAMAGED THE REACTOR CORE AND LEFT THE PIANT HIGHLY CONTAMINATED,WAS CAUSED BY A CLEAR VIOIATION OF NRC REGUIATIONS, SHODDY MAINTENANCE, SEVERAL DESIGN FIAWS, AND HUMAN ERRORS WHICH ,m BFOUGHT TIIE PIANT TO WITHIN MINUTES OF A MELTDOWN? !v )
........ THAT ONLY TIME WILL REVEAL (LIKE IT IMS BY THE DTHERS AND BEEN DENIED BY THOSE IN VIDIATIONS) TIIE EXTENT OF HEALTH PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM THE HIGHLY RADI0 ACTIVE GAS EMISSIONS: CANCER AND LEUKEMIA CASES 10-30 YEARS FROM NOW7 THIS COUNTY IMS NO EVACUATION PIANS, TO TAKE CARE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, YOU WILL NEVER GET THERE, BECAUSE EVERYONE IS IN PANIC AND WANT'S TO GET OUT IN A IlURRY ALL IN ONE TIME.THERE IS NO SHELTER TO HANDLE ALL THESE.
ETERNAL STORAGE: IT TAKES FDRE THAN 500.000 YEARS FOR PLUT0NIUM-239 TO IDSE GTS POISONOUS RADIOACTIVITY.
...... Tint STRONTIUM - 90 AND CESIUM - 137 WILL REQUIRE IS01ATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT FOR 1000 YEARS?
...... Ti&T AFTER 35 + YEARS OF THE NUCLEAR AGE, THERE IS STILL NO ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE " DISPOSAL".DESPITE CLAIMS BY INDUSTRY, AND THAT "IEMPORARY" STORAGE SITES InVE A IIISTORY OF LEAKAGE?
.......T1&T A STUDY OF NUCLEAR REPROCESSING PIANTS IN EURGPE AND JAPAN WHICH ATTEMPT TO RECOVER FOR RE_ USE THE STILL USEFUL URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM FROM SPENT REACTOR RODS (CIAIMED TO BE A MAJOR ANSWER TO WASTE DISPOSAL BY THE INDUSTRY) CONCLUDED ,
Tl&T PIANTS ARE SHUT DOWN SO FREQUENTLY, OPERATING AT LESS THAN 35 % CAPACITY FAR BELOW TIIE 80 PERCENT EXPECTED, DUE TO ACCIDENTS AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS!f TIRT THEY p ARE NOT " COMMERCIALLY VIABLE"? l V ....... TIRT THE AVERAGE LIFE OF COMMERCIAL REPROCESSING PIANTS IS ONLY SIX YEARS? l l
l PAGE 3 ) BURNING DOWN A FOREST TO BOIL AN EGG: DD YOU KNOW TINT THE TASK OF A NUCL I^ POWER PIANT IS SIMPLY TO BOIL WATER?
...... Tint TIE HEAT CREATED BY SPLITTING THE ATOM IS SO EXCESSIVE Tint A MILLION CALLONS OF COOLING WATER A MINUIE IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AWAY THE SURPLUS?
INSURANCEV IN CASE OF AN ACCDENT AT THE CONDNWEALTH EDISON PIANT, THERE IS NO INSURANCE NOT EVEN PRIVATE INSURANCE FOR RADIATION DA}nGE FROM ANY NUCLEAR FACILITY OR TRANSPORTATION ACC EENT?
...... TIRT REACTOR ACCEENT DAMAGES ARE ESTIbnTED TO BE OVER $ 300 BILLION IN A FnJOR ACCEENT?
...... TIRT BY IAW,THE PRICE- ANDERSON ACT, LIABILITY PER PIANT ACCEENT IS LIMITED TO
$ 560 MILLION,WHICH IS MUCH LESS TIRN THE COST TO BUIIB THE PIANT ITSELF ?
..... A NRC QUOTE: " 40 PERCENT OF THE NATIONAL RISK FROM NUCLEAR POWER PIANTS IS CONCENTRATED AT TWO PIANTS BECAUSE THEY ARE SO CLOSE TO BIG CITIES: COMONWEALTH EDISON PIANT AT ZION ILLINRIS, AND ONE NEAR NEW YORK CITY"u IT SEEMS IT REPEAT ITSELF, BY ALIDWING AGAIN COMM.ED. TO BUILD TQOCLOSE TO POPUIATION AND THEIR LIVESTOCK AND DRINKING WATER. IT SEEMS TO ME,NO FnTTER WI&T THE RISK, WHAT COMM.ED.COMM.ED.ldW7 ,
HOW CAN ANYONE BE SO POWERFUL TO DICTATE TO TIE GOCERNMENT WERE TO BUILD. TOTALLY ARE OVERID0KED ALL TIE BAFETY MEASURES. 2.......... WE ARE PUTTING THE CART BEEORE THE HORSE HERE, WHEN THE NRC ONLY WOULD InVE ENOUGH GUTS TO STAND UP AND DO WHAT THEY SUPPOSE TO DO, INVESTIGATE AMD TEST Tile AREAS, (' WHERE COMM.ED. PUTS THEIR PIANTS, TinN THEY llAVE TO REALIZE HOW RISKY IT IS,AND TIRT IT USHOULD NEVER BE THERE TO BEGIN WITH. NEITIER HAS COMM.ED. EXPIAINED WHERE THEY GOING TO PUI THE NUCLEARWEASTE, IT CAN'T CO TO SHEFFIEID,ILLIN0IS, IT'S CLOSED AND THE SITE IS LEAKING EADIATION7 IT IS A BIG MISTAKE TO PUT THE PIANT INTO BRA OD ILLINOIS, WE SUPPOSE TO KEEP FARMEAND AS FARMIAND(OF WIMT IS STILL LEFT), BUT IT "dE TANTED TO USE ILLINOIS IN PARTICUIAR WILL COUNTY AND ETC... COUNTIES AS A DUMPING GROUND'FOR EVERYONE EISES. IT IS OUR CONSTITUIIONAL RIGHTS, TO LIVE IN A CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT,NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT TO SHORTEN OUR LIVES AND PURSUE OF 1&PPINESS. AND bay I REMIND THE BOARD THAT NUCLEAR WASTE IS NUCLEAR WASTE AND NOT BONUS MATERIAL,WlEN THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, SO WHY COMM.ED. DON'T KEEP IT. WE GOT TO START TO SPEAK PIAIN ENGLISH AND NOT MAKING IT SOUND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG BY USING DIFFERENT NAMES LIKE:
" LETS SPEAK PIAIN ENGISE":
SEFANTIC MELTDOWN: THE EXTENT TO WHICH NUCLEAR R0WER PLANTS ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH IS A SUBJECT OF CONSDERABLE DEBATE. BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION TIRT TIE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS A THREAT TO THE ENGLISH IANGUAGE. EVERY INDUSTRY laS ITS JAEGON, DESIGNED, IT OFTEN SEEMS,TO SEPARATE INSEERS FROM OUTSDERS,AND TO HELP THE FORFER RETAEN THEIR CONTRGL f} OVER TIE SITUATION. BUI IN NO INDUSTRY IS THE JARGON SO DESIGNED TO
\ J OBSCURE TIE FACTS AS IT IS IN THE NUCLEAR BUSINESS.
TAKE ACCEENTS FOR EXAMPLEY OTHER INDUSTRIES FRY IMVE THEM, THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY NEVER DOES. A FnLFUNCTION IN A PIANT IS CALLED A "IRANSIENT",A TERMIInT CAN COVER ANYTHING FROM A STUCK VALVE TO TIE OMINOUS FAILURE OF THE PIANT'S ENTIRE COOLING SYSTEM.
o
- PAGE 4 298 UNLESS, OF COURSE, IT IS AN " EVENT" WHICH MAY BE ANYTHING
( FROM A ROUTINE TURBINE TRIP OR AN UNSCHEDULED SHUTDOWN)A" SCRAM") TO A COMPLETE BOSS OF REACTOR COOLANT. A PIANT SYSTEM THAT FAILS TO FUNCTION AS IT SHOUID DOES NOT MALFUNCTION BUI UNDERG0ES AN " ABNORMAL EVOLUTION," WHICH SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING DARWIN SHOULD InVE STUDIEB. THE MALFUNCTION ITSEIF ISDESCRIBED AS A
" NORMAL ABERRATION." WHICH SOUNDSLIKE SOMETHING OUT OF KRAFFT=EBING.
A THEFT OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL IS CALLED " UNAUTHORIZED DIVERSION.'.' OTHER POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS InPPENINGS ARE QUALLY SHROUDED IN EUPHEMISM. FIRES NEVER OCCUR IN NUCLEAR PLANTS, ONLY RAPID OXIDATION", OUT-OF - CONTROL REACTORS DO N9T RUN AWAY,BUI GO ON" POWER EXCURSIONS" OR UNDERG0"UNPIANNED HYPERCRITICALITY". ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERS WHO STRUGGLED WITH THE 1979 ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISIAND, REACTORS CANNOT EXPIDBE. THE WORST Tint THEY CAN DO IS UNDERG0" SPONTANEOUS ENERCLTIC DISASSEMBLY". A PROCESS IN WHICH THEIR COMPONENTS CAN BE DISTRIBUTED UNIFORMLY OVER SEVERAL COUNTIES. SOME PUBLIC OFFICIALS lave TRIED TO END THE PRECTICE OF ATOMIC OBFUSCATION ANB IRVE URGED Tint T10SE GN THE NUCLEAR BUSINESS BE RMEIREQ AS A MATIER OF IAW AS WELL AS PUBLIC SAFETY, TO SPEAK V PIAIN ENGLISH.BUI THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN CALLING AN EXPIDSION AN EXPLOSION 1&VE THEIR WORK CUT OUI FOR THEM. SOME NUCLEAR INDUSTRY PROP)DTERS 10PE, IF THEY CAN GEI AWAY WITH IT, TO ACHIEVE A SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF NUCLEAR WASTE. TO ALLEVIATE GROWING PUBLIC ANXIETY ABOUI THESE HIGHLY,T0XIC, SOMETIMES BOMB = GRADE SUBSTANCES, THEY PROPOSE A SEMANTIC MEIAFDRBIOSIS. IT REALLY ISN"I WASTE AT ALL, THEY INSIST; IT'S "NUCLFAR BONUS MATERBAL." I GAVE YOUR BOARD ENOUGH REASONS AND CONCERN,ABOUT WHERE A NUCLEAR BOWER PIANT S10ULD AND S10UID NOT BE PUT AND WHEN. YOU MOST BE CONCERNED ABOUI THE BAFEIY OF THE PUBLIC FIRST, AND I CAN't FIND THIS IN BRAIDWOOD. NOT TO MENTION THE KANKAKEE RIVER WHICH WILL BE USED AS DRINKING WATER. WHAT WILL IT DO WHEN RADI0 ACTIVE WATER FROM THE COOLING POND GOES BACK INTO THE RIVER?????? IT MAY BE WISE TO DO LISTEN WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY, BECAUSE FROM COMPANIES LIKE COMM.ED. YOU WON'T GET EVERYTHING YOU ID0K FOR. SINCERELY MRS. GISEIA TOPOLSKI 405 S. MAY STREET JOLIET,ILLINGIS, 60436 gg,hl
23935.1 299 BRT 1 JUDGE BRENNER: Next we'll hear from Everett J. 2 Quigley. 3 MR. QUIGLEY: My name is Everett J. Quigley, 4 Rural Box 11, Route 78, Kankakee, Illinois. I don't have 5 a whole lot to say at this moment. I would like to say 6 that I'm -- didn't expect to have to be here this evening, 7 at least about a year or so ago I was hoping that the 8 opportunity for an operating license for the Commonwealth 9 Edison Braidwood plant would never have to occur, but 10 since it has, it still raises some questions in my mind as 11 to its validity and need, and also to the potential 12 dangers and risks in involved with such a plant operating. () 13 In the past I have followed the nuclear power 14 development of Commonwealth Edison with LaSalle and Byron 15 and a few other areas in the nuclear power industry, and I 16 have always wondered, when these plants are built, how we 17 are able to consider evacuation of a large population of 18 people during the event of a loss of coolant accident or a 19 very major accident that could happen the plant. l , 20 One of my questions has to do with -- to i 21 Commonwealth Edison is -- in detail and very 22 comprehensibly, how would Commonwealth Edison plan to l 23 evacuate the population located within 100 miles of the 24 nuclear power plant, the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, t i 25 and not necessarily excluding anything beyond 100 miles, l I l 1
l l 23935.1 300 BRT EO 1 but we'll say 100 miles of the nuclear power plant, in the 2 event of a loss of coolant accident or a major accident 3 that would involve the possibility of an evacuation? 4 Again, evacuation, to me, is one of the things 5 on my mind. We have been fortunate not having to face 6 that so far in this part of the state. It has been a 7 problem in Pennsylvania, and -- in the past, and I don't 8 think that really -- although we may have learned some 9 things from it -- answers have not been made as far as how 10 to adequately evacuate an area in the case of a major 11 accident. - 12 One of my other concerns, and I'm very happy to () 13 hear that the honorable panel has allowed the contention 14 for the harassment, concerning the harassment of quality 15 control inspectors at the work site and construction site 16 of the Braidwood Nuclear Power Station. I hope that the 17 panel of judges will look carefully into this contention 18 and examine it carefully. to make sure that all quality 19 control inspectors have certain freedom to assess the area 20 that they are responsible for, and to make a proper and 21 honorable report of that area. 22 I have no other questions. I basically reserve 23 the right to make additional written comments in the 24 future. Thank you very much. 25 JUDGE COLE: I would just like to respond to
23935.1 301 BRT
~-
1 one of your comments, Mr. Quigley, concerning the 100-mile 2 distance for evacuation. We have to abide by the rules of 3 the Commission and the current rules require evacuation 4 out to a 10-mile area. It seems that your problem, then, 5 is with the Commission and the rules of the Commission, 6 not necessarily with this particular board. 7 MR. QUIGLEY: Okay. I could amend that 8 question, I guess, to make it for 10 miles. You are 9 probably right -- you are very right as far as that goes. 10 I'll be glad to amend that question, if it would be 11 possible. 12 JUDGE COLE: The evacuation plan will provide O (_/ 13 for and address the issue of the 10-mile evacuation. 14 MR. QUIGLEY: In detail and very comprehensibly? 15 JUDGE COLE: Hopefully, sir. 16 JUDGE BRENNER: You are in Kankakee, I don't 17 know how you are going to get access to the plans. It 18 hasn't been issued yet, the first proposal from the state. 19 It's scheduled for issuance soon, in August we are told. 20 And then some months after that, a federal agency, the 21 Federal Emergency Management Agency will be issuing a 22 plant. We have some emergency planning issues in the 23 hearing, but they are not precisely the questions you 24 asked, and you are going to have to find a way through rT 25 somebody in the local area to get access to those V
23935.1 302 BRT .f3 V 1 documents. The emergency plan itself is rather thick and 2 I'm not going to require somebody to send it to you. 3 MR. QUIGLEY: Okay. 4 JUDGE BRENNER: To the extent you can stay 5 plugged in, hopefully you'll see what you want in that 6 report. It will be put in the public document room, but I 7 realize that won't help you in Kankakee. 8 MR. QUIGLEY: Well, that's not too far away. 9 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. We are going to be 10 at hearings in October, although not on issues presently 11 scheduled -- presently scheduled for October, although not 12 on the issues you raise, and then again in January on some () 13 issues, including an emergency planning issue -- again, 14 not the one you raised. If by that time you haven't 15 learned where you can go look at those documents, come 16 back and let us know. 17 MR. QUIGLEY: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brenner. 18 JUDGE BRENNER: Next I have Joseph J. Talarico. 19 MR. TALARICO: Could I hold until the next -- I 20 would like to go on last, if I may? 21 JUDGE BRENNER: Sure. I'll call two and then 22 come back to you. 23 Ron Hafner? 24 MR. HAFNER: Hi, my name is Ron Hafner. I'm a 25 trustee in the Village Board of Godley. I was elected to
l 23935.1 303 BRT l 1 that position in October -- not October, but April. I 2 have a couple of questions I would like to ask concerning 3 Commonwealth Edison. Are any of you familiar with where 4 Godley is? 5 JUDGE BRENNER: No. I was going to ask you but 6 I didn't want to interrupt. Could you tell me where it is? 7 MR. HAFNER: I have a map here. 8 JUDGE BRENNER: If you describe it with 9 reference to either Joliet or the -- 10 MR. HAFNER: I could throw a rock and hit the 11 Braidwood station. 12 JUDGE BRENNER: That's a,very good description. () 13 Better than a map. 14 MR. HAFNER: There's Godley. There's the 15 reactor. 16 We have several problems we noticed in the 17 village. One is one that some of the people noticed now -- 18 I don't know if it's directly related to the Braidwood 19 station, but a lot of the residents have been complaining i 20 about the wells in the village are drying up. l l 21 I know they had a report when they dug the one 22 ditch on, I believe it would be the north side of the i
- 23 cooling lake, the cooling lake by the village limits of 24 Godley. There was one gentlemen at the Chicago Beagle 25 Club, Mr. Dyer. I believe Commonwealth Edison came out I
i
23935.1 304 BRT O 1 and drilled a new well for him, because immediately after 2 they put in that ditch his well went dry. We had six 3 residents that came in the last board meeting that came in 4 the second Monday of the month that came in and were 5 complaining about their wells going dry. I guess it has 6 been pretty dry for the past few years and Godley has not 7 been known never to have a water problem. We have always 8 had a water problem there. 9 JUDGE BRENNER: Could you tell me what the time 10 relationship is between the ditch you say Commonwealth 11 Edison dug and the problem you say with the wells? 12 MR. RAFNER: Between the time they connected () 13 all the cooling lakes together and the wells? 14 JUDGE BRENNER: I thought were you talking 15 about a particular ditch? 16 MR. HAFNER: One particular ditch, I don't know 17 the particular answer. The village clerk was the one who 18 filled me in on this situation, but the way I understood 19 it it was very close, right after the time they done it. 20 But that could just be because -- kind of look at it, too, 21 it has been drier these past few years and we have been
, 22 putting in some more drainage ditches of our own in the 23 village, so it could be just because of our taking care of 24 our own water problem, that might be the cause, too. But g_ 25 the main concern I have for right now as far as the l V l
l
i 23935.1 305 BRT i 1 village is with the cooling lakes, our village being -- , 2 the border of the village is also the southeast corner of 3 the lakes. 1 l j 4~ I don't know if any of you have been past a 1 5 nuclear power plant's cooling lakes in the winter but the ; 6 fog that comes off of them lakes is pretty bad. I have a 7 small map of our village, and the cooling lakes come in 8 this -- they would come all along in here, is where the i 9 cooling lakes are. We have residents that live, most of , 10 our residential areas are right in here. With that fog 11 coming off the lakes it's liable to, at times, just 12 completely fog out the whole town. We have street lights () 13 in our village right now but the street lights we have 14 would be totally useless against that type of fog. We r
- 15 just have, right now, we have the regular mercury vapor 16 light. I don't know if the sodium vapor lighting would 17 thrgw off more light, I don't know if it would be a help 18 or no.
19 But I have friends at the Kankakee River about i down at Dresden and at times you go down that road 5 or 10 20 21 miles an hour you have problems keeping on one side of the 22 road or the other with the fog. And some of our residents i. 4 23 live within 400 feet of these lakes. 24 JUDGE BRENNER: I didn't want to interrupt your 25 statement so I'm waiting for you to finish your points. O i' t
. . . . . , . _ . , ._-.y - . . - , . . _ , , , . _ _ _ . . . -- -_,....__.,___.-_,.._m . , . - ,m.. ,_-,_,._,_______,.__,_r. , _ _ ,
23935.1 306 BRT n N 1 Are you finished? e 2 MR. HAFNER: That was basically what I had. 3 JUDGE BRENNER: Have you seen a fogging problem 4 in your village yet? I don't know if it was filled in 5 the winter or filled now for that matter? 6 MR. HAFNER: It's filled now. What I'm worried 7 about is wnen they get their license and it starts 8 operating, that's when the problem will occur, with the 9 warm water, when the water -- they run the water through 10 the system and return the warm water back to the lake. 11 JUDGE BRENNER: Was the lake built last winter 12 even though the station was not operating?
) 13 MR. HAFNER: It was filled last winter.
14 JUDGE BRENNER: Did you have a fogging problem 15 then? 16 MR. HAFNER: No. 17 JUDGE BRENNER: I don't think the lake gets 18 that much hotter. Have you or anyone on behalf of the 19 village discussed it directly with Commonwealth Edison? 20 MR. HAFNER: No, we haven't. And I wanted to 21 ask one more thing. What is the NRC's rules on 22 residential areas, in close -- right now what is the 23 rulings on how close residential areas be to a nuclear 24 power station? 25 JUDGE BRENNER: We don't have any
23935.1 307 BRT O V 1 particular ruling with respect to residential areas other 2 than the fact that there's a certain area known as an 3 exclusion area and there can be no activities in that area 4 with the exception of transportation routes, including 5 railroads, whether it's a factory, or residential -- there 6 can't be anything in the exclusion area. Once you are 7 beyond the exclusion area there are no regulations, but to 8 the extent there are particular problems they could have 9 been raised as issues in the hearing. 10 To the extent -- I took your question to mean 11 as applied to Braidwood. If you are in the middle of a 12 population of millions of people you are going to have, 13 _( ) obviously, emergency planning problems. That's a 14 different issue. 15 MR. HAFNER: Right now we have 1107 residences, 9 16 houses, and we have 383 residents, total population of the 17 town. 18 JUDGE BRENNER: We do not have any particular 19 siting regulations that would apply to that as long as 20 they are outside the so-called exclusion area. 21 MR. HAFNER: You don't have to have that 22 exclusion area right now, though? 23 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm sure they used it only 24 because that was looked at at the construction permit 25 stage and anything within there would be permitted. I'm
I 23935.1 308 BRT O 1 sorry I didn't bring my own copies of the safety 2 evaluation right. It can be checked very easily; or the 3 final environment statement, although this would be in the 4 safety report. 5 Ms. Chan, could you provide Mr. Hafner with the 6 limited portion of the safety evaluation report that 7 discusses the exclusion area and the utility's control 8 over it? 9 MS. CHAN: Yes. If he'll just leave me his 10 name and address, I'll be glad to send it to him. 11 MR. HAFNER: Thank you very much. That's all I 12 have. () 13 JUDGE BRENNER: On the fogging issue, let me 14 suggest that you discuss it with Commonwealth in the first 15 instance. I don't see a reason to involve us -- at least 16 at this point. When you talk to Ms. Chan - 'I'm putting 17 so many burdens on her, but hopefully just providing 18 documents that already exist is not that much of a burden 19 -- why don't you supply Mr. Hafner with just a portion or 20 the whole statement if it's easier, of the final 21 environmental statement, give him the references to where 22 a possible fogging or icing of the cooling lake is 23 discussed, if it is. 24 Why don't you take it from there? In other 25 words, take a look at that first, and if you disagree with O _ . . . .. _ . . .~ . . _ . ._.__.-.... _ _ _ __y
I l l 23935.1 309 ' BRT I ($) ' 1 it or have questions, then you can discuss it with the 2 staff and Commonwealth Edison and involve the other 3 village officials also. If you still have a problem when i 4 we are back in October or January, let us know. I I 5 MR. HAFNER: Okay. Like I say, out at Dresden, 6 friends of mine before they got operating they never had 7 no problem at all and then when they start operating -- I 8 mean it's -- they had to put covers over the bridges and 9 the whole shot because it got so bad out there. 10 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm not disagreeing with you 11 necessarily. I'm only a lawyer here, I'm not an expert. 12 But see what the experts say in the first instance and see () 13 whether it makes sense to you. 14 MR. HAFNER: Okay. Thank you very much. 15 JUDGE BRENNER: Diane Chaves? 16 Chaves? I tried two pronunciations hoping to 17 hit one them -- 18 MS. CHAVES: Actually neither one makss a 19 difference. I even don't know the correct pronunciation. 20 (Laughter.) 21 JUDGE COLE: How do you say it, Ms. Chaves? 22 MS. CHAVES: Chaves, Chaves, I use both 23 actually. 24 My name is Diane Chaves and I live at 528 25 Gregory Street in Rockford, Illinois. I am here as an O
....-.,.7_..__.
23935.1 310 BRT O 1 individual. I am also her e as a representative of the 2 Citizens Alliance for the Environment. We, of course, 3 intervened at the Byron proceeding this past couple of 4 years. 5 I would like to address some comments in 6 general on the hearing process and then make some remarks 7 on a few issues that I know are under consideration in 8 this particular proceeding. 9 With respect to the hearing process I would 10 like to remark that so often at the construction and 11 operating stages, the hearings are the only opportunities 12 for the public to become aware of the fact that there is, () 13 first of all a nuc' lear power plant in their vicinity, and 14 that it may have some effect upon their livelihoods. So 15 often, however, the NRC proceedings are scheduled and set 16 up in a manner in which the primary concern is whether or 17 not the hearing can be conducted and terminated prior to 18 the plant being ready for operation. 19 Really, these two time periods are in conflict 20 with one another, and too often the public doesn't really 21 have the opportunity to participate in an educated manner 22 and raise all the concerns that they wish to at the 23 hearing stage. 24 With respect to this particular proceeding, we 7- 25 don't necessarily feel that there is a need to place O
23935.1 311 BRT 1 restraints upon the conduct of the hearing as far as the 2 issues that are admitted, or to try and move the hearing 3 in a manner that will proceed prior to -- conclude prior 4 to, say, fuel load or prior to the end of next year. We 5 think that there is plenty of time in this proceeding for 6 an adequate hearing on all the issues, particularly since 7 only a few issues have been raised so far. 8 We would wish to encourage the board to raise, 9 sua sponte, its own issues, and to consider issues that 10 are not even raised by individuals at this hearing. 11 For instance, the board may wish to put into 12 admittance on the record, a lot of the quality assurance, rm (_) 13 quality control documents and' the NRC correspondence that 14 was exchanged between the NRC and the utility, because so 15 often issues arise late in a hearing process, which no 16 other individuals other than the utility or the NRC are 17 aware of. And the board should have the opportunity to 18 look at these issues and raise them themselves, if need be, 19 ~ if they feel something is particularly important. 20 With respect to some of the issues that are 21 under consideration in this proceeding, I would like to 22 say a few things with respect to the quality assurance 23 matter. 24 At this point, apparently there is information 25 that has been raised concerning harassment of quality
.. .~. -~ . - . . ,, . _ - _ _ . . . . .
23935.1 312 i BRT C 1 control inspectors down at the plant. I would urge the 2 board to pay the deepest attention to this particular 3 issue because it is really the one issue in which the most 4 crucial and factual information about the state of the 5 _ plant and the plant's construction can be raised. 6 I would urge the board direct its attention to 7 assuring that these individuals have a full opportunity to 8 come forward and express their opinion at the hearing; 9 that the evidence standards and the standards regarding 10 the admission of witnesses be relaxed to the point that a 11 witness who may not be -- feel particularly relaxed or 12 confident about giving testimony, but who still has () 13 important information to divulge, can be allowed to come 14 forward and participate even if his information may not be 15 considered to be particularly in line with legal evidence. 16 And I would suggest that the board -- and urge 17 the board -- conduct its own independent investigation 18 into the issue of harassment at the plant and to urge that 19 an independent body look into the allegations that are 20 contended and that the hearings are conducted, and that 21 the board send a representative present to any NRC 22 investigation, that are conducted for those plant workers 23 there at the plant. 24 I would also urge that the board -- that the 25 board raise an issue with respect to the reinspection O
l 23935.1 313 BRT 1 1 program that has been conducted at the Braidwood plant. 2 That reinspection program, of course, grew out of the 3 Byron reinspection program, and that program as it exists 4 right now would be a means by which the board could take a 5 look as to the adequacy of the construction of the 6 Braidwood plant. 7 With respect to the emergency plan, I note that 8 the board has mentioned that the issue of medical 9 facilities has been raised at least once today and 10 considered by the board. 11 .I would urge that the board reconsider that 12 issue. Although it has been indicated that medical () 13 facilities are present within the Braidwood area and that 14 provisions have been made with medical facilities to care 15 for contaminated individuals in the event of an emergency, 16 I would urge that the board look into that particular area 17 because it is one in which the state and the utility have 18 proven to be exceptionally weak on in the past. 19 As it exists now, presently there are -- there 20 is at least one list of medical facilities in the states 21 which are designated to be medical facilities to treat and 22 decontaminate individuals. However, the majority of those 23 facilities on that list have received no contact and had 24 no participation in being designated as medical facilities. 25 What that means is, of course, that there is no assurance
23935.1 314 BRT j O 1 that they actually have the facilities necessary to either 2 treat or transport individuals. 3 Particularly in light of the fact that this 4 area is very close to the LaSalle plant and to the Dresden , 5 plant and that medical facilities for those two areas that 6 are being used to service those two areas will also be 7 depended upon for this particular plant, it should be 8 incumbent upon everyone present to make an investigation 9 to determine that facilities are available for use. 10 With respect to the Byron -- I mean the 11 Braidwood emergency plan. 12 JUDGE BRENNER: Judge Cole and and Callihan () 13 make that mistake all the time. 14 MS. CHAVES: Okay. As I understand it the 15 state is in the midst of issuing the Braidwood emergency 16 plan. At this point in time I would urge that the utility 17 and the state be directed to provide public materials in 18 the earlier revisions of the plan. , 19 Initially the plan was a public document. At 20 this time it is available through the Freedom of 21 Information Act, through requests to the state. 22 Although it may not be in final form, there are 23 earlier drafts of the plan available and I would urge that 24 the board direct the parties to be allowed to see those 25 materials because those materials are quite voluminous and 7-) V __7
i 23935.1 315 BRT O 1 if they are to be released later on this year, the parties 2 should have the opportunity to review those materials at 3 length and to formulate and revise contentions on the 4 basis of what is contained in the plan. 5 The plan itself is really the only direction 6 that the state has, or anyone of the public has, as to 7 what provisions will be in place for evacuating any 8 particular segment of the population and I would urge that 9 the board request the state and the utility to provide, if 10 not the final copy at this time, then earlier drafts of 11 the plan. 12 In addition -- A (_) 13 JUDGE BRENNER: Ms. Chaves, just stay with that 14 plan. I'm sorry for interrupting. The plan as proposed 15 for review by the federal authorities, that is, the 16 proposed plan of the state and the appropriate local 17 jurisdictions, is going to be given to the parties 18 involved and the emergency planning issues in the case as 19 soon as it's issued, and it's scheduled for sometime early 20 in August. 21 MS. CHAVES: I would urge that the parties have 22 great latitude in their opportunity to formulate new 23 contentions on the basis of those plans. Because as it 24 stands right now, all the provisions in the plans are -- or 25 the plan is the only basis upon which to base contentions
23935.1 316 BRT 1 and to litigate emergency planning at the hearing because 2 otherwise you have no guidance whatsoever as to what 3 provisions are going to be in place. And, in addition, if 4 the issue has not been raised before, I would urge that 5 the matters also be provided with a copy of the standard 6 operating procedures for the emergency plan, which are the 7 more detailed set of provisions for the plan. And those
~
8 operating procedures will usually take longer to develop 9 but in this case I think they should probably be developed 10 and issued at about the same time. 11 In addition, with respect to emergency planning, 12 I would like to raise the issue, if it hasn't been raised () 13 prior to now, of host communities. Currently, the state 14 of Illinois emergency plan is an overall state plan which 15 incorporates not only the Braidwood facility but every 16 other nuclear facility in the state. 17 There exists in these plans, provisions on 18 evacuating the 10-mile area around the plant. However, 19 nowhere in this plan are there any provisions for what 20 guidance host communities are going to be given in 21 planning for how to support evacuees to leave those 10-mile 22 areas and find refuge within their communities. 23 At this time, particularly in this area where 24 the LaSalle emergency 50-mile zone and 10-mile zone 25 touches and intertwines with the Braidwood emergency zone
23935.1 317 BRT - 1 and the Dresden emergency zone, the host communities 2 within this area are going to be severely impacted in the 3 event of emergency. They should be provided with a copy 4 of the plan and they should be provided within instruction 5 and training from the state and the utility on how to plan 6 for the emergency. 7 one further issue I were like to raise with 8 respect to the emergency plan and that is the adequacy of 9 the notification system throughout this area. 10 Siren systems which are being put in place 11 around the Braidwood facility and which will be 12 operational are particularly effective within densely () 13 populated areas and city areas. They are particularly 14 ineffective in rural areas, such as the Braidwood area. 15 So we would urge that the board take attention and 16 consideration on light of adequacy of this notification 17 system around the area. 18 Around the Byron facility we have a great deal 19 of difficulty within the area on hearing the sirens, 20 despite the fact that there are about eight or nine sirens 21 scattered throughout the 10 miles around the plant. 22 Whereas FEMA is looking into the adequacy of sirens at the 23 Byron plant right now, at the Braidwood site the system is 24 being put into operation. Enough time still exists to 25 , supplement the system if necessary.
;_..--_=_--.- ._ -. . - _ - . - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ __----...:..=
l l 23935.1 318 BRT l 1 I would like to take the opportunity to thank 2 you for coming down here and listening to the public's 3 comments and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. 4 JUDGE BRENNER: Ms. Chaves, if you wait a 5 moment, I'm not going to attempt to cover everything you 6 raised. A lot of it relates to rulings we have made in 7 the proceeding or may be called upon to make in the 8 proceeding, and I don't think it's appropriate for me to 9 discuss that in this context. For that matter, even in 10 the proceeding I don't like to make abstract 11 pronouncements if I can avoid it. When we have particular 12 items before us we rule in those circumstances. But let, () 13 me address two things, because I have, I think, a fairly 14 concise comment as to each. 15 on your last issue, the siren notification 16 system, unlike the many complex issues we have to deal 17 with as judges, happily whether or not the sirens can be 18 heard in the area is something nobody needs us for. They 19 are tested and they are either heard or not heard based on u 20 the required test and reports throughout the 10-mile area, 21 and there are, indeed, many sites around the country where 22 the system is supplemented by other means. 23 For example, in factories and things of that 24 nature. So you don't need judges. You need sound experts , 25 and other experts out there during the test, and that's i
T 23935.1 319 BRT 1 what is done. And presumably that's going to be done in 2 this case. I see no reason to make it an issue before us 3 based on what you said. 4 MS. CHAVES: Well, the reason I raise it is i 5 because so often the standard of adequacy is a very 6 diffibult standardito measure. And so oftentimes, in the 7 conduct of FEMA reviews, the public lacks a forum to raise 8 and present evidence regarding the adequacy of the siren 9 system. And particularly at the time when the siren 10 systems are up for review and the hearings are being 11 conducted, I think that it's a good opportunity for the 12 public to raise the issue. m 13 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, based on my understanding 14 of,the issue, the siren system is not one of them. I 15 understand you to say it should be. 16 It has been my experience -- observation, 17 rather than direct involvement, that that type of issue is 18 ideally suit ed for other forums,- that is, namely the 19 experts -- and I don't like to give work away,_normally -- 20 but that is the experts go out and make their report based 21 on the test. To the extent people disagree as to whether 22 they could hear it or not the local jurisdictions really 23 have a lot of clout on that kind of issue. People in the 24 past that I have observed at other plants have gone 25 through their local government, complaining to the state
^
t 23935.1 320 BRT ) I which has to review the results of the test and, in turn, g 2 the state has a lot of cloud with FEMA and with the 3 utility and usually that's the way that gets resolved. 4 It's actually quite a nice way of resolving it, I think. 5 Maybe I have a naive view of it but I thought 6 it worked out pretty well that way. 7 You did mention in passing that you think we 8 should conduct an independent investigation of possible 9 harassment and other quality assurance matters. I have to 10 give you my opinion, that as a board, as judges, we are 11 not equipped, institutionally, to do that. Putting aside 12 whether we are equipped -- if we can do it. But () 13 institutionally we cannot be part of prosecuting, 14 investigating staff and then sit as judges. 15 What we can and do intend to do is to make sure 16 that any issues before us, and the harassment issue is one, 17 is fully taken care of by the evidence in the proceeding 18 before us and the utility -- in this case Commonwealth 19 Edison -- bears the burden on that evidence. 20 We understand the harassment contention raises 21 sensitive issues and I gave some of my opinions on that on 22 the record today and I'll continue to make the -- we'll 23 continue to make the rules we think are appropriate, 24 balancing interests all of which are geared to get us to a f 25 full and fair hearing on the subject, fair to all parties ! (_- l
23935.1 321 BRT 1 and full in the sense of getting the information to us. 2 That's the best I can-tell you at this point. 3 You might disagree with the way we apply that. 4 MS. CHAVES: Well, thank you for your comment. 5 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Talarico, did you want to 6 speak now? 7 Betty, did you have some others? 8 MR. TALARICO: Joseph Talarico, 20 West 9 Washington Street, Joliet, coordinator of the Will County 10 emergency services and disaster agency. 11 I'm not here to blow the horn for nuclear -- 12 the nuclear industry or blow the horn for the people who (). 13 are opposed to the nuclear industry, but I am here to blow 14 the horn for the job that we are required to do and that's 15 for the safety and protection of the people within the 16 10-mile EPZ zone and beyond. I would like to respond to 17 some of the questions that were asked by some of the 18 participants. 19 Mr. Quigley, worried about the evacuations. 20 A lot of people don't know how our evacuation plans are 21 developed, how they are made up. I would like to explain 22 that, if I may. 23 If you can envision a pie, a regular pie, this 24 pie has a center point. From that center point, slices 25 are drawn in that pie, just like you take a slice out of a O
23935.1 322 BRT I v 1 pie. Each one of these slices is numbered with a number, 2 RAB -- so on and so forth, around. 3 When we talk about evacuation, we talk about 4 wind direction. If the wind is coming from the southwest 5 and you see where the wind would pass over the plant 6 itself - ,which is in the center -- you see if there was a 7 radioactive release of gas, and that's how it's -- it 8 travels, by the clouds, by the wind. And you see which 9 way the wind direction is going and it will go through 10 certain -- a certain one of those pie slices. And if it 11 goes through one pie slice, the people that are evacuated 12 are not only that slice.but the slice on either side of it (O_) 13 for precautionary, safety's sake. 14 You do not evacuate everyone within a 10-mile 15 radius, you just evacuate those people that are in those 16 particular slices, the primary one and the two -- one on 17 each side of it. 18 So it's not a -- what we would call here a real 19 massive amount of population that we would be evacuating. 20 It depends on the number of people who happen to reside, 21 who happen to live within those sectors that we evacuate. 22 Ms. Chaves says -- said that the state plan was 23 an overall plan for all the plants. Well, each plant has 24 its own individual plan. There is no one master plan for 25 all of the plants. There will be a plan for Braidwood, O, u Y__
23935.1 323 BRT O 1 like there is for Byron, LaSalle, Quad Cities, and so 2 forth. 3 As far as the sirens' are concerned, we do have 4 sirens in Will County, and that's all I speak for is Will 5 County. They are tested monthly. How well they work -- 6 sometimes it's -- your guess is as good as mine. But I 7 think they do work fairly well. People are beginning to 8 listen to them. And I would just like to pass on one 9 little -- well -- it's a little bit funny now but it 10 wasn't at the time. 11 A couple of weeks ago we had some pretty 12 violent weather here and I received a call from rural () 13 Wilmington. Wilmington is four miles from Braidwood. And 14 I'll use his language, he says: A few minutes ago those 15 damn sirens went off, he says, what the hell is going on, 16 he says? I turned on the radio station -- which he should 17 be doing if there's something going on at the Dresden 18 nuclear power station, the EBS station -- he says, all 19 they were doing was playing music? 20 And I responded to him, I said: Well, I don't t 21 know. There's nothing going on at Dresden, but have you 22 looked outside at the weather lately? 23 And that particular night we had -- we spotted 24 a couple of tornadoes here in the county. _ 25 So, I know at least that one gentlemen heard (/
l l 23935.1 324 1 BRT O 1 those sirens, was paying attention, he had read the 2 pamphlet that we sent out for Dresden, and he responded 3 the way he was supposed to respond, if it was an incident 4 at the Dresden nuclear power plant. 5 We have exercised the Dresden plant several 6 times over the past years. We have evacuated children, 7 we have evacuated handicapped people, we have evacuated 8 adults. We have had three separate evacuations during 9 three separate drills. 10 We run these drills, and these exercises to -- 11 not to see how good we are, but to see Where our faults 12 are, Where our weak points are, so that we can immediately () 13 begin to correct those weak points rather than glow and 14 brag about how good and how well we performed in the 15 exercise. 16 So, but I welcome anyone to come into my office, 17 sit down and talk with me or talk with anyone in our 18 office about planning. If you have ideas we'd like to i 19 hear about them because, believe me, When we talk to the l 20 utility, they listen. They have been very cooperative. 21 And they have done things that we have requested them to 22 do. And that's -- that all comes about through our 23 exercises, the people Who really are concerned about what 24 happens during an exercise and what would happen, what
- 25 might happen, in a nuclear incident.
s-u.._.... . - _..
- ~ _ . . .
23935.1 325 BRT 1 And remember, that a nuclear power plant has no 2 relation whatsoever to a nuclear bomb. A bomb would 3 explode, you would have fire, you would burn up. 4 An incident at a nuclear power plant doesn't do 5 that. We have release of radioactive gas and it might 6 take, maybe days, to get from one classification to 7 another. So, it's not like you are going to do things 8 "right now." There may come a time when you might have to , 9 do that, and we prepare for that, we try to prepare for 10 that, but I'm talking about the normal happenings, what 11 takes place at a nuclear power plant in a gaseous release. 12 It may take a period of days to get to a point () 13 where you may have to evacuate people. 14 So, the only reason I got up here was just to 15 point out the few -- not errors, but lack of information, 16 I felt, that people had about certain things. And I again 17 -- I also want to thank you, Commission for holding this 18 public forum, because where else can people with enough 19 courage stand up before a Commission, whether it's NRC or 20 whatever, and speak what's on their mind in a sincere way. 21 And I thank you very much. 22 JUDGE BRENNER: Thank you. You recognize we 23 are not the Commission. I don't want you to confuse the 24 three of us with the five of them, from my point of view, 25 and I don't think from their point of view they want to
.. . : - z : :_ 22:2 -
. : 2 _: :_-_ .=____=_
23935.1 326 BRT o 1 confuse the two us eith er , but we understand your comment. 2 I'm sure the people here appreciate your offer 3 for them to come in and speak with you. I hope you don't 4 regret it if your office becomes overcrowded. 5 MR. TALARICO: Never. Our job is help to 6 protect the lives and property of people and their 7 property. And we never regret it. 8 JUDGE BRENNER: Next is Harry Euses. 9 MR. EUSES: That's a good job on my name. Most 10 people can't do as well. My name is Harry Euses, I live 11 at 1713 Oklahoma Drive, Rockford, Illinois. I have got to 12 admit I'm a little bit nervous, I'm not used to speaking () 13 in front of such a distinguished audience -- in fact, I'm 14 not used to speaking in front of an audience at all. But 15 I would like to take this opportunity to be able to voice 16 some concerns over the problems we are having in this 17 state with the nuclear power and the hazards and the costs 18 of this. I guess the first question I would like to have 19 an answer to is: Where are the wastes from the Braidwood 20 plant going to be stored? I do know that this waste has 21 an extremely long life span and that we, at this point, do 22 not have the technology to store this waste safely over 23 the period that it remains radioactive. 24 We would like to know where this is going to be 25 placed so that we can concern ourselves with this in the t _
23935.1 327 BRT O V 1 future generations as well. 2 And, I have heard several stories of the 3 accidents happening at these plants, especially involving 4 the workers with some fault being with the management for 5 not informing the workers of the kind of hazards they are 6 walking into and the quality of the electrical or -- 7 electrical work or the plumbing. Such things are 8 affecting a lot of these people. 9 I have friends who work for Commonwealth Edison 10 and some of them aren't even aware of some of the stories 11 that I have heard. These people should be allowed to know 12 about this. Their employers really aren't telling . hem () 13 anything. 14 But, I think my major concern at this point is 15 the cost of these plants. I would have to say that my 16 major concern is with the older people here in this state, 17 the senior citizens on fixed incomes, or those receiving 18 welfare. And I'm sure it's widely known that our rates 19 have been increasing at a tremendous rate here in this 20 state, but our people on fixed incomes are certainly not 21 getting an increase in their incom'e to pay for these bills. 22 A lot of people are having their electricity shut off 23 because they cannot afford to pay these rates. I can 2-4 speak from experience on this because my parents and I are 25 living on Social Security right now, receiving $800 a l l-
...=.;._ . =.
23935.1 328 BRT 1 month to feed, house, and clothe three people and on top 2 of that pay our utility bills, which many times run us 3 well over $100 a month. This situation is not improving 4 at all. 5 We do have, right now, three generations that 6 are being affected by these rate hikes: The senior 7 citizens; we have the people who are working or able to 8 work right now, receiving these increases in their rates 9 and they could be using this money on other things, maybe 10 to enjoy the small luxury of going out once in a while, 11 having the family over, things that they can't do because 12 their extra money is going to pay these utility bills; and () 13 we also have the future ratepayers of the state, such as 14 myself. I certainly don't want to see the rates double 15 again within a few years, as the situation looks to right 16 now. And hopefully, when I get out of college I'll have a 17 decent job and I'll be able to afford to pay the rates. 18 There are a lot of people of my generation who don't have 19 that opportunity and there's going to be a lot more in the 20 future. , 21 I used to be a canvasser for the Illinois 22 Public Action Council for a large part of this summer. 23 During that time I had the opportunity to speak to many 24 people over the northern Illinois area and I heard a lot 25 of concern and a lot of anger over the rate hikes that l l
23935.1 329 BRT O 1 have been given out. And When they heard that 2 Commonwealth Edison at the moment can generate 30 percent 3 more electricity than we can use, and that we have to foot 4 the bill for that capability, their anger grew. And it 5 grew even more when they found out that much of that 6 energy is being sold out of state. 7 So we are paying to produce it. We are also 8 giving Com Ed a nice profit by letting them sell it out of 9 state as well. But I think the final point came When we 10 found out that whether or not Byron and Braidwood plants 11 come in full operation we are going to be paying for 50 12 percent more electricity than we can possibly use in this () 13 state. That includes all our industries used at their 14 peak capacity and all the air conditioners in this state 15 being turned on. This is really kind of ridiculous. What 16 are we doing with this extra' power besides selling it out 17 of state? We are not receiving any benefits from this and 18 our electricity certainly isn't getting any cheaper here. 19 I have just been reading today some information 20 from the Business and Professional People for the Public 21 Interest. Some of the information I read stated that this 22 energy that the Braidwood plant will be able to add onto 23 what we already have is not going to be needed until the 24 next century and by that time the plant is going to 25 probably exceed its expectancy, its life span. So, my O
23935.1 330 BRT 1 question there is what good is it? What immediate benefit 2 are we going to see from allowing this plant to operate? 3 That study also said that, using an increased 4 amount of coal production right now would be far more 5 effectual in that coal plants are cheaper to build and 6 that Illinois coal can be used efficiently and without 7 extensive pollution right now. 8 The last thing I want to say is I'm not against 9 nuclear power by any means. I just don't see that we have 10 the technology right now to make this power efficient and 11 cost-effective and we don't have the technology to dispose 12 of the wastes. All sources of power do have their hazards
) 13 but it seems like nuclear power at this moment is by far 14 the most dangerous and the most expensive.
15 Thanks for your time. 16 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, than'k you. Let me 17 comment briefly on some of your points. In terms of the 18 cost of the plants, that is something we do not deal with 19 except in a very limited context, which was not related to 20 your understanding concern at the rates. We just do not 21 get involved in that at all. Your state ratesetting 22 Commission, which in Illinois I believe is the Public 23 Service Commission, gets involved. 24 MR. CASSEL: The Illinois Commerce Commission.
- 25 MR. EUSES: Yes, the Illinois Commerce
23935.1 331 BRT 1 Commission. 2 JUDGE BRENNER: And it's the Public Service 3 Commission in some states, and used to be the railroad 4 Commission in one state, oddly enough. But, in any event t 5' it was that state body that gets involved in setting the 6 rates, and in fact, determining whether to permit a 7 utility to bring a plant on-line by their control over 8 what would go into the rate base and what the state body 9 considers to be a prudent expenditure and so on. 10 Similarly, at least at this operating license 11 stage, we do not get involved in whether or not the power 12 is needed from the plant. So at that point it can also be () 13 related to the findings of the state Commission. 14 Judge Cole notes that at the construction 15 permit stage, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing 16 boards have looked at that, but it's just a long-range 17 future prognostication at that point and not the 18 closer-in-time look that a state Commission could make. 19 It's a general time frame, rather than a particular year 20 that that's focused on. 21 In terms of where the waste would be stored. 22 That's a good question because I don't know the answer 23 either. Let me give you the context, though. 24 There has been a court proceeding in which the 25 court has decided that on a generic basis there is enough O. e '4 4
23935.1 332 ERT O 1 assurance that the technology exists, even though a site 2 is not yet prepared -- but the court has found that the 3 technology exists sufficiently such that it is reasonable 4 to foresee that there will be sites for the more or less 5 permanent storage of wastes from nuclear power plants. On 6 that basis it has permitted nuclear power plant licensing 7 to continue. 8 That was a general finding as to the industry. 9 In the interim, most plants -- and I presume 10 without knowing that Braidwood falls in that category -- 11 make plans to store the spent fuel, that is the fuel that 12 is removed at refueling times, in what is known as a spent () 13 fuel pool and'is literally an area, a pit filled with 14 water. Normally, they are wet storage. And that is a 15 temporary storage, though, not the permanent disposal that 16 you were talking about. 17 I think that covers the points you raised I 18 wanted to cover. 19 MR. EUSES: Thank you. 20 JUDGE BRENNER: Thank you again. 21 Next we have Leroy Black. That's the last name 22 I have -- all right, we have some more. Could you bring 23 them up? 24 MR. BLACK: My name is Leroy Black, I live at 25 1610 Avalon in Joliet and I have two comments and one
t 23935.1 333 BRT O 1 question. 2 My first comment is that fusion is a more 3 available source of energy than fission because there are 4 fewer radioactive byproducts and they are easier to handle. 5 My second comment is that until fusion is 6 viable, we should site the fission plants in an uninhabited 7 area such as a desert, under the ground, with a closed 8 coolant system. The risks are not worth the small rewards 9 that we are gaining in the costs of the electricity. And 10 my third question deals with what we just talked about a 11 few moments ago. There is a process for rendering the 12 radioactive wastes harmless and that's called " spallation" () 13 it's a process of injecting protons into the nucleus. We 14 could, and I think someone should suggest, look into the 15 costs of spallation process right at the site where the 16 radioactive wave is being produced. Thank you. 17 JUDGE BRENNER: I don't have anything in 18 response. Thank you for your comments. 19 MR. BLACK: I thought Judge Callihan might have 20 something to say about the spallation process. 21 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I think there are more 22 problems with that at this moment than what we have to 23 contend with. It's a matter of development and 24 application to reduce it to a practical scale. I really 25 can't contribute much to your question. O
23935.1 334 CRT O 1 JUDGE COLE: Is anybody working on spallation 2 right now? 3 MR. BLACK: I read this article in Fusion 4 Magazine five or six years ago and they made it sound like 5 a proton accelerator would be able to do the process. I 6 thought the process was already solved. I wasn't aware 7 that there were some technical problems. 8 JUDGE COLE: Are you familiar with the 9 transmutation programs? 10 MR. BLACK: Yes. Changing the radioactive 11 elements into stable isotopes? - 12 JUDGE COLE: Yes. Is this part of that program, () 13 do you know? 14 MR. BLACK: Yes. I think they would need to 15 site a proton accelerator right near the power plant or 16 right near the power plant. Of cource once we have fusion 17 we won't need a fission reactor. 18 JUDGE COLE: Okay. 19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you. We have a couple l 20 of more folks who have taken the trouble to come from 21 Rockford. The next one is Stanley Campbell. 22 MR. CAMPBELL: I would like to say hello again 23 to Judge Cole and Judge Callihan, and then welcome you, 24 Judge Brenner, to Illinois. 25 JUDGE BRENNER: Thank you. I have been here (
i 23935.1 335 BRT 1 before, but not on this proceeding. Thank you. 2 JUDGE COLE: Not as long as we were here. 3 MR. CAMPBELL: What other proceedings are you 4 associated with? i 5 JUDGE BRENNER: I have been to Illinois before, 6 not Joliet. 7 MR. CAMPBELL: Are you presently working on 8 other nuclear power plant hearings as well? 9 JUDGE BRENNER: Not in Illinois. 10 MR. CAMPBELL: Throughout the country? 11 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes. Well, I have some lengthy 12 involvement that is about to come to an end in the Shoreham 13 nuclear power plant in New York and that's it at the 14 moment. 15 MR. CAMPBELL: We do wish the best for you in 16 your stay here in Illinois but we do expect some hard work 17 and a thorough record. I was involved in the Byron 18 hearings with Sinnissippi, S-i-n-n-i-s-s-i-p-p-i, Allies l 19 for the Environment. That was March 1983, to October of 20 1984. I would like to speak to you of some of the 21 concerns that were raised during that hearing that relates l l 22 to Braidwood, and also about the treatment of the 23 Intervenors. 24 Intervening is not a sport to be taken lightly. I 25 Some of the citizens that now speak out about their L
23935.1 336 BRT (~h v 1 concerns may be harassed by people who hold opposite 2 viewpoints. In fact there have been people in Rockford 3 that have been receiving rude phone calls because of their 4 involvement in the intervention. They do not do this 5 because it's -- they are unpatriotic or because they have 6 some conspiracy in mind, but because they have a basic 7 concern about the community in which they live. 8 Also, in the initial process of intervention -- 9 of intervening, the citizen intervenors in DeKalb and in 10 Rockford were rudely treated by representatives of 11 Commonwealth Edison. 12 The attorneys for Commonwealth Edison, at the
) 13 first initial hearing, yelled at us, and as we have never 14 been to a hearing before, and were not legally represented, 15 we were taken aback by that and we did lose two people 16 from that initial meeting -- two people that had 17 volunteered to look over all the paperwork. And the 18 amount of paperwork, believe you me, is quite horrendous.
19 But again for those citizens who do put their time and 20 effort into it, they can raise significant issues. 21 Usually just the tip of the iceberg because our expertise 22 is not technical. But there are enough problems out there 23 that citizens who do put their time into it can at least 24 make the plant a little bit safer, and may even be able to fg 25 catch some major errors. U
23935.1 337 CRT O LJ l So, again, I hope that you give as much time 2 and allow for problems that may -- may arise because of 3 the inexperience from the Intervenors, allow them to be 4 worked out. 5 Discovery -- 6 JUDGE BRENNER: No party is going to run at 7 another party in a proceeding in which we are present. 8 MR. CAMPBELL: This was not a proceeding. This 9 was the initial meeting between Commonwealth Edison and 10 the Intervenors. 11 JUDGE BRENNER: I misunderstood. My statement 12 stands, though.
) 13 MR. CAMPBELL: We wish we would have had 14 representatives there from the NRC as well. In that way 15 we felt maybe they would have been held on a leash.
16 Discovery is a word that we discovered about 17 two weeks before the end of our discovery period, and we 18 tried to use it as much as we could, in the little time 19 that we had left. 20 one of the questions we submitted had to deal 21 with INE reports, NRC reports of violations at a nuclear 22 power plant. We asked to see them. And after the 23 discovery period was over they invited us into Chicago, 24 into a room about half this size, with stacks of paper all 25 over it. And said: Here they are.
23935.1 338 BRT O V ' 1 We figured that the thicker piles of paper were 2 the more interesting reports of problems, okay? So we 3 requested those to be copied and the utility very nicely 4 copied them off for us and didn't charge us anything. 5 Before the end of the hearing and, in fact 6 after the initial hearing and after the initial decision, 7 and just before the end of the second hearing, we received 8 from a worker at the plant who was responding to 9 Commonwealth Edison's claims that the plant is ready to go 10 on line and these judges are holding up our license -- 11 this is a computer printout of the INE reports that the 12 NRC was -- had levied against Commonwealth . Edison that () 13 Commonwealth Edison was still working on. 14 They issued these reports weekly. You can look 15 through here, find out the type and level of the violation, 16 the NRC inspector that caught the violation, the subject 17 and status, they give a priority rating -- whether it's 18 going to be, you know -- it has to be done before they can 19 get the license, or before they can load fuel, or before 20 they can turn it on, or maybe before the first ',nar is up. 21 And then the department that it's assigned to, the name of 22 the comment person and the notes and comments. 23 We had to receive this from employees at a 24 nuclear power plant who are in fear of their lives, or at 25 least their jobs, to get that type of information that we O
23935.1 339 BRT m b 1 had requested a year ago. So, discovery -- I would 2 suggest keeping discovery open and allowing as much time 3 for these citizens to go in there and dig around in their 4 files until they find out interesting computer printouts 5 like this. 6 JUDGE BRENNER: I think we have counsel 7 representing the party in this case on the QA issue who, 8 happily, have discovered discovery long before this case. 9 They are well aware of the discovery rights. 10 I understand your point as to your situation 11 but I just -- 12 MR. CAMPBELL: I kind of pity. these Intervenors 13 because they do have an attorney representing them. Not 14 because of the attorneys, because they are hard working, 15 low paid, over-worked, some of the best loved people in 16 this state. But there's only a few of them. 17 JUDGE BRENNER: Attorneys? 18 MR. CAMPBELL: Our attorneys. The Intervenors -- 19 JUDGE BRENNER: Now, on the other hand the 20 utilities' attorneys, I can see where you might raise some 21 questions. 22 (Laughter.) 23 But, again, I must point out that these 24 attorneys are very hard working and they do not have all 25 the time that the utility attorneys have to counter them.
V
-23935.1 340 BRT O 1 Allow employees that work or have worked at the 2 plant to testify, even if it's just to let them talk. If 3 it's in the middle of the hearing, or near the end of the 4 hearing. I know that the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission is giving very -- getting very peeved at all 6 these last minute, last ditch efforts by citizens to try 7 and stop nuclear power plants because workers come forward 8 with interesting tidbits of information. But a number of 9 employees at the plant do have valid concerns down there, 10 and allowing them to testify and having those concerns put 11 into the record is the least you can do for these people 12 who are going to end up, very likely, not being allowed to
() 13 work at any other nuclear power plant in the country. 14 Whenever you hear -- 15 JUDGE BRENNER: You know, if I can interrupt 16 and I'll let you continue. In fairness to the Commission, 17 whose members of course are not present tonight -- I don't 18 believe you have actually characterized their concern. 19 They are not concerned with the fact that workers might 20 raise significant matters. They are concerned that 21 matters which could be raised years before are not raised 22 until the last moment, apparently by purposeful delay. 23 And to the extent there's any validity to that concern, I 24 think it is a valid concern by responsible regulators, and l 25 I don't think their concern is that the information will
. - . - . . _ . . . .. . . .~ .
23935.1 341 BRT O g 1 be significant, it's that the timing is such that they 2 should be raised earlier. 3 MR. CAMPBELL: But Judge Brenner, I again point 4 out that most of these workers did not come to Intervenors 5 until the last minute. This information was not that well 6 known. 7 Again, within certain circulation of the NRC 8 and the utility, this information is probably talked over 9 coffee in the morning, but between the citizens and the 10 attorneys that represent these citizens, they don't know 11 about it until those workers come and talk to them in full. 12 There are a number of times that we receive telephone (( ) 13 calls and chit chat. But there's no way of verifying 14 whether it's some person just harassing us or whether it 15 is a valid concern. 16 JUDGE BRENNER: I wasn't blaming you. I meant 17 to speak generally, because I took your comment to be a 18 general one as to the Commission's interest. 19 Go ahead. 20 MR. CAMPBELL: I would suggest that whenever 21 you hear of an outside firm coming into the nuclear power 22 plant -- into a specific plant and inspecting areas, even 23 if these areas are not within the area of your -- of the 24 contentions raised, I would suggest that you ask to see 25 that report. Oftentimes it can show problems that may O
342 23935.1
~
BRT (_). 1 have missed the intervencr's discovery -- or search. 2 Someone else suggested to me an innovative way 3 of determining Commonwealth Edison's latest problems. 4 I'll just share that with you and then pass on. 5 Commonwealth Edison's advertising program. It 6 seems that Commonwealth Edison ran a series of ads on how 7 well trained their control room operators were. At the 8 same time the NRC flunked 60 percent of the Byron nuclear 9 power plant reactors on their first series of tests. 10 There was another series of ads on how well the 11 welds were being checked, and at the same time the NRC was 12 reporting concerns about welding at the Braidwood plant. () 13 I would suggest that you should realize that 14 the utility has practically unlimited resources, and I can 15 understand why they hire such expensive, well-looking, and 16 expert attorneys. Because every time it appears that a 17 utility executive gets on the witness stand they seem to 18 end up swallowing their feet. 19 During the Byron hearing we had an executive on, 20 I believe he was in charge of the quality assurance 21 program for Commonwealth Edison, who was asked a question: 22 Isn't it true that Commonwealth Edison is more concerned 23 with productivity than with quality? 24 And he stated: Yes. 25 And the attorney looked down at the questions O i 1 l l
23935.1 343
,,s ERT 1 that she had, you know, for the follow-up, expecting a 2 "no," shrugged her shoulders and went on.
3 Even during cross-examination by the utility 4 attorneys, it was difficult to get this person away from 5 "No. We want productivity. Quality is secondary. We 6 want to put these plants on line as fast as possible." 7 There was another time that a Commonwealth 8 Edison employee -- I believe he was quality 9 assurance / quality control chief down at the Byron nuclear 10 power plant, was asked: Why didn't you follow this up? 11 There was a problem here, why didn't you follow it up? 12 . And he said: Well, because of this and this, t0 ( ,j 13 and besides, the plant is so well designed anyway that we 14 didn't think it would be much of a problem. 15 That was another typical arrogant answer by 16 Commonwealth Edison. These plants are so well designed 17 that they could build them almost upside-down and it would 18 still work. 19 The trouble is there has been no adequate 20 search through the designing process. We began to -- we 21 tried to do it up there at Byron, but I don't blame the 22 judges that they didn't want to take a look at it. I 23 don't blame you at all. Because it's a monstrous amount 24 of work. There wasn't that much time to it. But, again, e 25 the arrogance of the utility is based upon the design of (
23935.1 344 BRT 1 the plant, and an adequate review during a hearing has 2 never, to my knowledge, ever been done. 3 Commonwealth Edison has had problems with the 4 NRC before. In fact, I believe in 1983 they racked up a 5 total of eight fines against them, which was a record. 6 And the NRC talked to Commonwealth Edison and suggested 7 they clean up their act and they promised that they would. 8 Right now, though, Commonwealth Edison is 9 fighting a $25,000 NRC fine relating to security at Byron. 10 I would like to present the -- both the article from l 11 Nucleonics Week, which is published by McGraw-Hill, and l 12 the article in the newspaper, the most recent one, July 7, () 13 1985, from the Rockford Register Star, about Edison 14 fighting the $25,000 NRC fine. 15 The fine could have been $50,000, the fine 16 states, but the NRC cut it down to $25,000 for some reason. 17 JUDGE BRENNER: We can have those two documents 18 bound into the transcript at this point, and that way, by j 19 reference, we'll see in further detail what you are 20 referring to. If you can give it to the reporter when you 21 are done that will be fine. 22 MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much. 23 (The document follows:) 24 1 C:)
1
] f,/9 W %
345 I n l W
; ~ ..--. _. . l
- t denta.. - s t '
how NRC phys 1C1StS They also pointed to state laws that re. quired the district to notify teachers Thou July 1 whether the would be la a preQ examine Byron naama'idofforretained = ""-"* me - In April the school district was antici, man after mishaps a~" eudget. The school aid package approve by the luinois Legislature laat week gives
- - m*
8Y tra Teinowitz Th< the Rockford School District at !.ast 33 reduci
! R - Two health physicists from the Nu. milli n a year in additional state air. of buq clear Regulatory Commission examined proce-dures at Commonwealth Edison Co.'s Byron Nu.
l clear Power Plant on Tuesday after the fourth j incident in two months in which workers were i contaminated. - J On July 1, two maintenance workers were con- L .*N .*R
* { [
taminated on their hands while working on a pipe at the plant. y. I Ruu Marabito, an NRC spokesman, said the incident itself was considered "inaignificant" and pJ i h~
~
' the amount of radioactive contamination released <
would not normauy be enough to trigger any NRC , action. O ! However, because there were several such inci-dents in e little more than two months, the NRC sent a team to investigata, he said. . t s a "It is not unusual to have contamination from 5 1 time to time at all nuclear operating planta. But they (Commonwealth Edison) have had a number-of these smaller ones recently and the team is going over to look at the radistion protection sys. tem, he said. "They will look at this one and others in the past." On May 1, two maintenance workers at the f'4N+ f@ g . ;i syl 1 w d i ap$ plant aho were espected to receive some radiation e'[M'vh tDW7 MM[)d= Mr ;Qg4l, exposure, received more than originally planned. On May 23, about a dozen workers at the plant Ukt t 49 w M ^ were contaminated when a valve in an ausdiary building ruptured as radioactive gas was trans. f gg. , 1: '- l ferred from one tank to another, h^ky'pl ? - '
', On June 4. aeveral people were contaminated - [ ffEK ) M,m,e, - 't
, i due tn a loose fitting on another gas line in the same building.
1-Q pp W Tom McIntire, Commonwealth Edieon's div. {1,46f 4 e %
'%,, cfy, g]
w a
' leion superintendent, said it was his under.
standmg that the NRC wee concerned mainly prk,'q# My
- i. #
+k)Q0gf y y A
i almut the May I and July 1 incidenta becaune they
)h,, f#Y~)
W' involved " personnel error" as opposed to the other , Y,e fw,h. 6 . fe i two, a hich were caused by mechanical problems. - r X "When the are two instances which look like $y% c U:)c,kmi .,lhV..r 1 W u!ME s 6 N .f personnel error, we are concernal and the NRC le concerned." I lie uid the company still la conducting an in.
! vestigation of the two incidents.
1 Marabito said the NRC was notified of the inci. The weeds are waist r6Qh in (Ns lot on Rockforg dents by its iniepectcr at the plant, not by Com. rnonwealth Edison. Kidnap, murder suspect i 8v Phil Onhnev n. n on nr 4.,,, .a..a.a 4 - . n u .. .
]
/
, n V /C/ 3. - 346
/
- n. c/ ,.
v
-)
y
, , g..g
., ,, how r i They also pointed to state laws that re. Thou.
Uqgpgq l Jwawaw O quired the district to notify teachers July 1 whether they would be laid off or retained a prel fi VO EM P M before it could determine how much money in AQ REE a 5E it would be getting from the state. the [t In April the school district was antici. masa after mishans F eudget. The school and package a by the Illinois Legislature last week gives The BYi m Teinowitz the Rockford School District at least $3 reducW H f50 - Two health physicists from the Nu. milli o a year in additional stata aid. of bud clear Regulatory Commission examined proce. dures at Commonwealth Edi.mn Co.'s Byron Nu. I clear Power Plant on Tuesday after the fourth ' incident in two months in which workers were contaminated. y F On July 1, two maintenance workers were con. taminated on their hands while working on a pipe
$$j% hI .
ha .p. A f @hgj. . , at the plant. :gt M, ;pf a _
-' Runa htarabito, an NRC spokesman. said the :,r d ip.c l
$ffh.$g .
incident itself was considered "insigmficant" and p the amount of radioactive contammation relea,cd r qgg' gm.*;
, y .-
n , would not normally be enough to trigger any NRC action. m%me ium q y e p,ga t - (v , i However, because there were seversi such inci. dents in a little more than two months, the NRC (Ji"? D s P s i sent a team to investigate, he said.
'~~~ "It is not unusual to have contamination from Md:
Irs,ch yp I time to time at all maclear operating planta. But M, 6'N f* i they (Commonwealth Edison) have had a number 6C < k of these sme ones r recently and the team is f-i going'over to look at the radiation protection sys. /M q $[1 f lI
;i tem, he said. "They will look at this one and others in the past."
d 7MM
);i , grWMW,pQQ%.4p%,
fi , . m, ht ; 7 FOn 5 fay 1, two maintenance workers at the k; " fig!!, W .i,$*D* ft[- SW va c':rrt.xt!5Wre expected to receive some radution ; f?a$ I + ' d ty Ml exposure, received more than originally planned. 2 < Mi/Ch tW [ OnMbout a dozen workers at the plant [ ')i W Mp.M,kp p 'lp.ic!J y' y yp', were contammated when a valve in an auzihary building ruptured as radioactive gas was trans. s g hgi6q >gq fgh Jp. q h -, ferTed from one tank to another. G' 1, #; 3 y@% ~.j g i ! N.,N r y - gp*; -. b On June 4, several people were contaminated jf) W l-j due to a toowRtting on another gas line in the R[,f.f%gjhh'lf
?t .hs g;3 f,ytp g}
same building. r M L Tom hfcIntire Commonwealth Edison's div. ;'. i,h 1*Mdp W f/ j 4$7. pW 5,qd .hci kr l ision superintendent, said it was his under-standing that the NRC was concernal mainly
. il sGWW ., hor, hg. W .N*
~V tMf* $ #
@9. ' * ?,Yis %
- hf /fn' about the Stay I and July 1 incidents because they $' M involved " personnel error" as oppmed to the other !/i-./F he k R! f%f N' *
,' two, w hich were caused by mechanical problems.
L ig 4"q%. TQ! .,y,44ff;1 t ILW i . W f M 'Ibj : ,Y iv1d5 ,
"When there are two instances which k.A hke
; personnel error, we are concerned and the NRC is n concerned."
. He said the company still is conducting an in.
Vestigation of the two inculents.
- b l; Atarabito said the NRC waa notified of the incl. The weeds are wa:st hgh in tbs lot on RocMford dents by its inspector at the plant, not by Com. l
( l> monwealth Edison.
)
v Kidnap, murder suspect 1 l av Phil Onhnev nn~ on a 4" ~. a..Aa w ~ ~ n'.-- l
_ t,,, _ sa rr ,_, P.6_. .,., - ir.r P ~.r. .- 1.
- m. Worker Exposure to Radiation e o WORhE R EXPOSURE TO RADl41 TON IN 1982 on
< twe an
>w gs rw-ens w =,, ==
g ==,,
- q. Esposure of nucfear plant workers to radaten in 1982 not keep adequate records on tempcwary workers, and et actming e.s crac 5 m by c onemunf at rec ord h<ghs, ac cording to unpubinhed NRC am ee takes the NRC two years to gather, analyze and pubbsh More data obeamed by INbbc Citizen's CritKal Mass. For the the information specific to them. As of September.1981 ^'k*"5*s 92 PwR 803 leott 29 13 n E N By E M H thwd year m a row. the trwal dose to the worktorce es- the most recent asa,lable data were for 1980. In that year. Scave yah mR m i755 23 48 c ceded 9) Om person rems The 1982 total dose hgure of transient workers compnsed 45 percent of the tota!
El No ef 52.190 person rems was wwnewhat il 5%1 lew than workforce, a 35 fold increase since 1972- [8 e '2/3 1 7 Rated 39gt s high of 54.142. but foibws ugndicant increases of Brunswick t/2 BWR 3792 4957 38 33 L'"8" What effect does esposure to radiation have on nuclear CAert Clifts 1/2 PW R 1057 1805 P" 35% in 1980 and 20% m 19'9 16 40 I ""** '" 8" E'8" workerst Med cal findings base concluuvely linked radia. Cook 1/2 mR 699 1527 32 22 Histortaffy, the armual total dose to workers has m- tion esposure with cancer and genetic damage, and there 37 Conper Staton SWR 542 741 4t> 30 [ (reased more than forty fold unre 1%9. when esposure is no known safe threshok! for radiation esposure. But Crystal River 1 PWR 177 780 12 44
*[ 8-{ y%
trdafled 1.247 person rems, wh41e the number of plants has iru reased only clesen fold. from 7 to 74 because its damage as not manifest for as many as 30 DavwBewe Drw*en 1/2/3 Pw R swr 164 1350 4 89 years, radiation gets lost in the statistical crowd of other 2920 2572 55 68 f yo y, %we plant workers were esposed to rneasurable doses Duane Amnld BWR 229 524 24 4I cancer-caussng substances. Empert opmion vanes on the ed raAaten in 1982 than eser before A total of 84.322 number of deaths among nuclear workers that will resuit I*' *V II2* #84 "" wen that the regwm workers were esposed. 2.139 more people than m 1981- troro their cumulative esposure m 1982 to more than 8 ' A T Regm t. whw h Thew statst(s wwferate a trend within the nuclear m- 50.(00 rems. Based on the figures of the National }" p 7 5
.rs tard. the 1)ntrut of riustry to spread the nsk of canar and genetic damage to Canna PW R 1140 1117 54 41 Academy of Soen(e (NAS) Advesory Committee on the Haddam Nec k PwP 126 559 10 73 a.1 the New England more workers every year Because the es a Icgal1 met on g,ogog, cal Effects of lonizing Radiation (BEIR), there will a nbry manawrs in its the arnount of radiation esptswe any one wrwker can Hat (h II2 PwR 14u1 1418 25 57 be between three and ten additional cancer deaths. Other Humtmkit say BwR 19 71 15 49 plants m that seg.on ret ene_ but no hmit on how many gvople can be esposed sources such as the Mancuso study of atomic workers, m- Indian Pome 1/2 PWR 1635 2144 46 08 e ibes rwe vem u be to get a toh done, the rndustry heres erwwe and more dicate the BEIR estimates may be too low by a factor of 30 Ind an Pome 3 PWR 1226 1477 47 05 Ling!y dmerent em p workers every year to do its dirty work Because of this- or more. Kewaunce PWR 101 351 18 70 t g.nc gewi.f rades to the number of esposed werkers !.as inc reased dramatical- Emposure to radiation has a cumulative health effect. I* Cross, swr 205 148 58 11 ly - mewe than a hundred foki sante the NRC began col- Each adi. tonal year of radiation esposure increases the ,"
aas u ruemued by the intmg data m 1969 - [j 9 ret the automatic shut. nsk of leukemia and of cancer of the bone marrow. y,,,,,0,, y gg, 9y9 y3,9 45 34 T he ww reasang number of temporary workers at nuc lear thyroid, breast. lang. etc. In acktrion to cancer, radiaton
, i tiw ses fat k of ' m plants is a serious problem Ibese employees are known Milhtone 2 PwR 141) 2081 45 61 esposure at low levt45 can cause genetic damage, berth Montwello BWR 991 1307 40 09
;hnt operates, and as "gumpen" or " sponges ~ be(ause they work en radioac- defects. nd mescarriages A 1979 Bntish study of nuclear Nine M*le Pomt BWR 1264 1352 48 45 m shut de swn s4rw e the tne hot spots and soak up rad aton as they make repa rs. dockprd workers showed three- and four fold increases North Anna 1/2 PWR 10 78 1915 2872 en among the domest Utilities here as many tempnrary workers as necessJry to in chromosomal damJge after esposures of 23 rems pc! Otonee 1/2/3 PW R 1792 2445 44 7I rems requwed after the tmnh a peb. then lay them off when they have absorbed series of a hearing m-year far 10 years Ner L'ces BwR 865 12'O 41 73 the aftowable raf6atum doses. There is an mherent Enesting law aliows radiaton cuposure of U.S. nuclear Palaades PwR ilo 1554 It 07 ami esen the top c(onnemt arwi bealth mequity to these workers unce full plant workers up to 5 rems annually, and as high as 12 Pe*Ch B"""'n 2rl BwR 1977 2714 45 14 i wnplu afed m makeng time emplogces generally recesse less rahatson but are rems in some cases. TF s is 30 to 70 times higher than the "n 8 2 R Comennsanner W- ectitled to tuff time salanes arw! benefits. The utilities do g 0.17 rems recommended as the upper hmit for the general
* *"d!'"" O# ' h' '"P Prame island I/2 PWR 229 645 22 48
%nrker Radiation Esposure/flettnc Power Produced: pubhc by the Nanonal Academy of Sciences' BEIR Com- SM R 1757 23:4 7342
-e allomme tImt I to Quad Cnees 1/2 sites witte Ratios 15 ee More Times Higher than the mittee. A dose of 5 rems is comparable to the amount of R,ncho 5,co PwR il7 ;r,6 24 9I towest in 1982 radiaron en 250 chest Urays. Dr. Edward Radford. former Rohmson 2 PWR 1426 2011 16 20 west f<w eltwe supera Charman of the BEIR Committee, has called for a t%2 Ratm ot Times Higher 5: Lucie PWR 272 1045 15 31 ommewwm itself to m' minemum reduction of the hmit by ten-fold, down to 0.50 Mee f gunsure/ than towest Salem 1/2* PW R 1201 3228 2I.78 Rwms are f o"W'dN' Nuclear Sac IIcutrer Power' 1982 Ratie' rems. In 1982. 29.395 U.S nuclear plant workers (14 8 $an onofre 1/2 PWR 8 12 1055 17 98
% g% yy5 g5 percent of those with measurable doses) were esposed to u ah I* R 5 g a (. rm.c 13 9 59 5 0.50 rems or greater.
Nme nir n,.nr 95 45 One endes used by the NRC to compare the pubhc gg pg , igg 4 3yy yg go mg R. k Pome 75 T ropn PWR 419 977 25 08 l' 5 henefits to the risks of nuclear power plants is the ratio of Turkey Pomt 3;4 5%R hsba n=nt t 71 15 5 2119 2956 44 28 person rems of radiatron eymsure to megawart years Y smn<w= k t /2 65 12 5 Nw.ir) of power produced This measures the total Vermont vankee bur 205 481 Il 19 I R"h mna l 51 55 amount of worker rahation esposure disided by the yanke, Rowe Pwn 474 84 15 87 i '"'" 3" * * ** 22 0 twin 1/2 PWR 210) 1575 65 11 D" Piirwn i 19 19 5 amount of power generated at a particular ute for a gnen
,, TueMs an t industry As. e.w 521'30 84122 14 58
% g ,,,,, i ry f According to this yardstnL. the best utes in 1982 were e,,,,ais.,swe Nac em s,,,,,,,. eae. .ium.ned kwa nie u.aane.neas q p ,,,,, g ,n.g 3g 18 o at Haddam Neck. Kewaunee. and Praine Istarwi 1/2. At sahwmarina seem h. (Wt=e af Reimwie Maaasemeae, Nac. %~d 4 u w.r eno 3a 170 San Onofre, the rate was 13 5. or f>7.5 times higher than * (aaaml kw 'he 6aaam tsar wwtian ni.ne i;2 11 15 5 at the best utes. This plant has had the worst occ uparonal set a c eil.ng on the total dose to the wrwk fort e tw the site i 1..ias person , ems os edene enwwuve <tnaiteet twwaawan esposure record for each of the past three yeart in adde of that work force, when c ombined with the high lesek of years re eb, ten ny pe<=tm ed at em A i.nc n a measuve of the Don to San Onofre.13 other sites (hsted m the table allowable esposure to imhviduals, shows a callous amnune r,t w,wker vaikewe e=prwe per und nd pow,, belowl had esposure/pewer ratos more than 15 nmes disregard for the natumal heal'h. T he imlustry has c wated
)?, ge,,,., sed higher than the best utes. a genea time exwnb the e stects rf wht(h cane ot be
- MYO
., 2 la 1982 Ntdem Ne* k. Eewauew.c and Pra.ne h1wwt 142 had in order to protect the workforce, lower ttdal lewis of Am>wn for seseral generatioin g ,as..e hn, A In she +c 1. ww w.. kr ..de .a i =e twn ita +<t re=> Ju in es,,, radiatwm espege are needed rather than lust 4 h,%rmhv on h.= fnel ra<**ma n asadahle ** h *"m era se.- she sw t 1,= *as m .m t u.s tim , darnbuting tF mae to more m.e. The failure to g ,,,,, j %
4 Pi l
! nspections beefed up at Byron in wake of shutdowns J By Juhrt CcAr'.ge 7 // / W unn. f win and e:Turs by FJu em. anat ->.ev w..n o ha.e as y W.i snt rs=ma ud that none 4 de dmt. tre sw=? he und, be.=4 on dxum- , y,g, p ,sw w me pl o n Oct', pp ams? downs. as isoleted incidesta, would syvs with Hdi Furney. the NRC's chart p,y &- '
- 1 BYRON - E.ght onplanned reactor
.La/ Lens at the Hyr. : nudcar pimer At this p int. I think ...r p suse W.6..s the . hot &>.rm ha., twen at-add be marchang at <fm.nl te imgl sery f r.t.u'on ta -rn rs and reta:t .n. t m.n= an C mn na rom a naMy or M .ngwetnins k Byrua.
( There as an way to teQ how long the p , _ f. plant since February have led Salear raretJv. en terms i4 a heuhar.ed in- % 'n.irt'. * < *ns and ein tric.d s m. "But the numbers niaicgest to un that c.iatroi.rnd mel' functinn may delay Regulatory Comma .on otteo.la to .pectam etfort end a&tr. mat attent..n .l t a - : n.t zes. tt . .gh a tedty r,. thinge are not as tcey should be.
- l. 3 step up mspectme efforts durma the fc.sn uur management.' %rsamma #1 .:. r a'rd r.d hu i14 te.tmg .ance Thc=.gh conditions are not sa the p mt *ns 2cm Winture ud Tt,
, plant's faal tentang phase. Nt=Ly. l t t'ratay. d the SitC stesping in and .hutt.sv trenn rmt es one d 53 e ds that ehen Agency apdemman Jan Strasma .and N number of reator ,tr ps er r..A n 'een 'estay ihron.a l'nat ' the piant down, we've sad Com Ed mwrted .nt e the reactne cure, mh. hit
, the .hutdowns are ames than 4J4 4:utonwns, in greater than me d espect 1 % t+ r .: 19 per ent pwer %nce ' -thev "*uve to -
wntm* ve
) be ud."And tis n.dar chain reactnun.
' ( be*e been espected tr..en an esperi- , ; . see at t h.3 p.snt en i. e per gram 't - *
- ara.av L : wm q -rm'en-
Wheft 'te Nab are fuly withdr.s n. g - enced i.tahty == h as C..m.neneen.;rn I hev t* ave ni4 h J any e en n. ant Ce- - rt t'. m ' ? Im.re ni M FA.= Ca and naad the SRC sa taam- tv pr. blems there. but ., 4 ar.e it or r . :..'. 4 di e- ;w e r.e t ant a.li is 't.uy
,s. 4 Aramma sad there is no acceptable r.ien brr af reactor .huta>=na durms gt, .,,ctor i (,,, to .perate at s d hre ing the problems om equpenent mal. ..peentem and performence to t;e ch 6.rrate n d wt this rm e.th. teatang. "What I'm gwing is a subjec- f.ee eeSprontPage Fa V Byron Cv%2 ewn Page tA e not a ba'g deal in steelf."
Sm.e the Unit I reactor first sua. ra ace. The one faulty cA cannot be r vl a awlrar cha.a reartw,a Feb. N1y eithdrwa fa unemptmaned ree. w:A .stclatue samt A .t ais been shut duwe 20 tanse -
'This as a very frnitratmg problem er412 / tt+m planned for routme tast.
we're le.ht.g with." M61stire sad "ft coiJd keep i.e duwis a whale, but reap.re the unplanned shutduwas. we ruu.d tarate it and be back up an a McIntare samt the hRC a generaDy sataf.ed esth Rhaa's tamung pro-day w un. It km k.a hke we're gosng to green to Amn a <uuple more days, any-
.ay * "M e'd like to have seen tres hhut.
I' tant morters were expected to downsa hut we're not overty enn. finah repair wurk late Monday no terrmd with the number." he and "Tha NRC has been km> hang over our matrumentatie damaged by twhtn. stundder att the way and they're eat. me,tha. ettrek the plant Fridav. i*fied
- Nd y M'" M M '"
a=*~ - 8
ith on,. aparreo sucts an scrimonious fight, said: *
, .. w n asthe financial needs of "This is the largest state building prmick Place exposition cen- since 1971. And for there to be a high level of 7 disagreement on such a proposal is not sur-over how to parcel out " Build prising
349- l
- Edison 5
# ypc [ge ~
to fight i,j $25,000 n 1 30 ylM NR'C fine e, By Ira Teinowitz g th. no,me sin
$}
yq l
. Commonwealth Edison is prepar-
; ing to contest a $25,000 fine from the [
1og Nuclear Regulatory Commission for at e ; a security violation at the Byron Nu.
>1 y clear Plant.
.ttw
, og i .
The company has asked the NRC Ja 4 -~ for time to respond to the allegations N 4* ,, that produced the fine. W j(daW4c 18 W' l think we may have grounds for
.r cortesting the fine," said Tom McIn-It'S tire, the company's division superin-
%*l([
j L pq c s
- tendent.
Wa!
}{E > y . On June 7, the NRC levied the fine
#J-3I % np SOC 4 after learning a door in the plant that aOy
%gorgp*qZ %y;,}f sf == aupp-d
- be 'aciad = =^ia-tam secunty was unlocked for a pe- we ky, $ @n - 4'4 riod of time during February. A plant FRF; in. 1.p ' M- security cornputer which keeps the W
,y P< q j 2
'm _ '
I door locked was out of service at the time. SO I OtJ t. F ,
. The violation normally carnes a M s,a - . n wn, $50,000 penalty. McIntire said the st at Festa Hispana. company was fined half the normal j
lh , amount because it immediately took g g corrective action and reported the hj fc good cry - - - ""o McIntire said the first of two htte 27;*ppers. Bymn nuclear plants, although still hpCardenas, vice , chairman of the in testing, is nearing the day when it
- id the pepper eating contest is one will bepbcedin fulloperatiom Nbte the heritage of some Rockford The 1,120-megawatt Unit 1 is out ly has pie-eating contesta. Well of service this week to permit repairs no pepper is popular in the Span- on a pump used to recirculate cooling water.
- hunity, so we thought, why not lntest?" she nid.
McIntire said he expected the C f'., r was the closing day of the fimta. plant to be back in operation for test-5 k ing by the end of the week or early # - y r ch et next week. He said the plant may be participanta from Chicago and operatmnal by the end ofJuly. f and finally a performance fmm
$,Q,t t reco the we A second Byron unit is still being built, and McIntire said he hoped it u.
7. ( could be operational by late 1986.
RASH CF FINES PUTS NRC SPQTL, nGHT ON iOt'MONWEALTH EDISON - M N# % Comnmnwealth 1:diprt;thelargest Li,5. ninc!ds: et lit}, has received nearly as many NRC Tmes in 1983 g as et has ne its entire 9 hi t..sy, prohipting tophpRyre ment offidals to worry about possible " degradation" apr. in wrporate manapein nt% y ..m.,,m. e., w ; .o. woong s,Th. fe thesnand needless wozzy I i rir) 350 rN fe N %. $. ] U Th-!"!M, m[4,i us seven nucasr upM ; fe aime Lemove4:aits ~5.emuu dute i 4 The utility recei d 4, total of 10 fines from 1974 through 1982. In 1983 o date, eight Gnes have been prol posed. They tot N540.000 and have ranged from 500.000 to $150,000. The Quad Cities complex has been moived in thrs i the utations and the Dresden and Zion faalities in two fines each. An NRC Region !!! spokesman sainocher facility in the region has been cited in a fine more than oncein 1983. Jane AxabaJtdirectoe of enforcement- for NRC's Ot ace of inspection & Enforcement (IE), recently told the Ad
- Committee en Reactor Safeguards that NRC is concerned there is a " pattern" emerging at Comm$nwes h Estsort.The (mes have been over breakdowns in individual plant management, she sai "but there have . n so rday.we'are beginning to worry about a breakdown in corporate management." IE Director Richard DeYoungand Region !!! administrator James Keppler secently held an enforcement con.
ference with Commonwealth Edison management to discuss that we try."The feeling in the region is that ma .agement has taken aggressive action and the initial results are cru.ouraging," she said,"but it is going to
~
take some time before you see if the trend has been reversed." ACRS member William Kerr said the citation for the largest of the fines, $150,000 for failures to fol. fow procedures at Quad Cities-f that led to control rods being inserted as though the plant was starting up instead of shuttins down. !ed him to believe Commonwealth Edison " management is in poor shape." Axel-rad said the citation wnters might have been " loose with our language. We think it is significant enough to dras management attention, but not significant enough to consider any shutdowns." A uttlity source said the sudden upsurge of fines is confusing both utility management and the public. NRC's reaction to any incident seems "less predictable" than in the past,he said, adding,"It's not clear what , we should be doing to avoid getting hammered with these fines "The general public, he said," sees a $150,000 line and says,'What are they doingin these places' People kill people and get out on bail for less '" - None of the fines has involved any accusations of reckiessness or recurrences of the same incidents, the utility source said, although a Region til spokesman said the two incidents at Zion were considered sim-ilar because both involved security violations. For each incident Commonwealth Edison has proposed and taken steps to prevent recunences. But each of theincidents has involved mistakes or failures to follow pro-cedures at the plant level, the source said, and utility officials do not believe that such mistakes can be viewed as harbingers of a management breakdown. "I questiert whether anyone who says that understands what man. asement ir.all about,"' the source said. " Management systems do not preclude personnel errors, they estch thentand correctthem, and our systent is doing that." Evety incident involved in fines, he said, was teported to NRC by the utility. . l Commonwealth Edison hasan entire section of management, headed by a vice president, devoted to managing its operating nuclear faci!! ties and another section is in charge of building them. Fines to gain man. asement attention arc not needed, the source said: "Their(NRC's) object was obtained way back. Now, they arejuss making things more difficult in our dealings with the public." -MarEurerRyare, Washhwron Nucleordes Wee's is published every Thursday try McGrsw4till. Inc.,1221 Avenue of the Amencas, New Yorit.N.Y. t0020. Officer.of tisi Corporauon: Huold W. McGraw Jr., Chairman: Joseph L Dionne. President and Chief Executive Ofncert Robert N. Landes, Senior Vice Presadent andSecretary: Ralph J. Webb Treamirer. Nudear Pmblicstions' staff and pehnary responsbilstaae: l TELEPHONES RogeeNewburger manasse Mickey Epstein, financzal/special projects administrator
/ r Rots Laufer, cfdef editor (Nucleonics Week)
Sebempe.os mformatioin Donald Martm, chief editor (NucleatFuet and Inade N.R.C.) Ca0 ( 112) 9974410 or TOLt, FREE (800) 2234180 James Branscome. Washinston editor Cone Broe uststant editor (Nucleanics Week) News orfica Steru Cooks. aasociate editor (NuclearFueo 8 4 aael Knaptk. Washington editor (NudesrFuel
' PansI3311720 2070 Ann NiacLachlan. European editor
%e= Ynrk ( 2t 2) 997.J l94 \taigaret Rran. Washington editor (Inside N.R.C.
l wutungtem ( 203 4631651 Frances Seshers, washirigion cditor (Nucleone6s Week) i
. .suamam;s wSet subicnouun rates: 5815 per rear in U.S. and Canada 1930 cisewhere sur mad deinereds. Addauonal I wrNnpuoni after the r*ust. : i strne address, un ame enveJope: 5705 per year ua U.S. and Canada,1505 each elsewhere.
I l t nriress G rnntAt 1953 remnanon byunWCriw of the traht owner.HiD. Inc. AG nahts NUCLEONICS w EEK isreserved. Res. U.S. Pat.Reproduccon Off. in ISSN any004810$X form whassoever forbidde la NUCLEONICS WEEK - Sepeember 8,19eJ
23935.'l 351 BRT O 1 MR. CAMBELL: Then, also I have an article of 2 July 12, 1985, and the headline is, " Inspections beefed up 3 at Byron in wake of shutdowns. " 4 Agency spokesman, Jan Strasma is quoted as 5 saying, "The number of reactor trips, or shutdowns, is 6 greater than we'd expect to see at this point in the 7 program." 8 Strasma goes on to state that, "The numbers 9 suggest to us that things are not as they should be. 10 Though conditions are not to the point of NRC stepping in 11 and shutting the plant down, we've told Com Ed they have 12 to improve." () 13 The article goes on to quote Mr. Tom McIntire, 14 Commonwealth Edison spokesman, saying, "We would like to 15 have seen less shutdowns but we are not overly concerned 16 with the number. The NRC has been looking over our 17 shoulder all the way and they are satisfied with our 18 testing programs. If not, they would have shut us down." 19 I would like to present that for the record as 20 w ell . 21 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. We'll bind that in 22 too, so you'll give the reporter those three documents, 23 then. 24 MR. CAMPBELL: I'm a part-time director of a 25 religious program called Rockford Urban Ministry, which O
23935.1 352 BRT O 1 deals with hungry homeless people in Rockford. It takes 2 up most of my time. It's really a full-time job. But I 3 have been, lately, getting telephone calls from employees 4 at the nuclear power plant. And.I certainly hope that 5 this will not in any way reflect upon the employment of 6 such workers, but -- and I should mention also it's not 7 usually the workers. It's sometimes wives, friends, 8 friends of friends, that call up. 9 One of them stated that an employee had been 10 contaminated on the elbow of his shirt, and there were two 11 people already in the decontamination room, so they let 12 this one employee go. I called up the NRC. We did have () 13 the name of the employee that the person thought had been 14 exposed and we reported that to the NRC. 15 On Wednesday, June 5th, I began making notes 16 and dating some of these. We got a call about a lot of 17 little leaks at the plant, puddles showing up that are 18 radioactive. And then a few times before we had 19 discussions with employees who were tracing, or trying to 20 trace where these leaks came from. And one other employee 21 who was trying to guess where it will go. 22 So, it was interesting, again we reported that 23 to the NRC. I'm not sure how that came up. 24 One time -- and then finally this last Friday I 25 received a call from someone who related a story that a
23935.1 353 BRT O-1 worker had come home with surgical gloves on their hands. 2 The worker had been told to clean up some water and he 3 asked: Is it radioactive? Is it hot? And they said: 4 No , it's not hot. 5 so he and a buddy were cleaning it up, and 6 halfway through they got this little light that went on in 7 their head and said, well, we'll go get some monitors and 8 double-check. It was, sure enough, hot, and their hands 9 were very hot. After three scrubbings, the worker was 10 told to go home, not take the glove off, and come back to 11 work the next day. 12 This, I guess, led to an article July 10, 1985 -- () 13 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Campbell, although we 14 didn't set a time frame, you are running substantially 15 longer than the others. Could I ask you to come to a 16 reasonable conclusion? 17 MR. CAMPBELL: In about five minutes? Could I 18 ask for five more minutes? 19 JUDGE BRENNER: A little less than that, please. 20 MR. CAMPBELL: Four minutes, please? One of 21 our concerns that we do have down there is that the 22 employees are being -- that the program for protecting 23 workers -- I'll allow you time to set your watch -- 24 JUDGE BRENNER: That's for my own benefit. A 25 trap door won't open when it goes off.- O
23935.1 354 BRT O 1 MR. CAMPBELL: This really is a unique 2 opportunity, because it's very rarely that at least this 3 can be set in some sort of record. But the radiation 4 protection program, at least at Byron, appears to be 5 extremely poor. 6 The NRC physicists are right now examining it 7 and there should be a report coming out. I would suggest ~ 8 that this may be indicative of Commonwealth Edison. They 9 have the lousiest worker exposure record in the country. 10 Out of the top four of the plants for exposing the 11 greatest number of employees, is the three Commonwealth 12 Edison's reactors, Quad Cities, Zion, and Dresden. () 13 LaSalle was too early. It hasn't yet built up 14 a decent record. But I would like to pass these -- this 15 article on, and then also an article on worker exposure to 16 radiation. I'm sure you are probably familiar with the 17 information in there, but again this is just for public 18 knowledge, too. I hope some people will at least take a 19 look at it because we tried, and we felt that we really 20 did tighten up some of the problems with worker exposure
- 21 at the plant through intervention. And then to get 22 stories like these is very discouraging. Why should we 23 intervene if we are going to have to watch our friends and 24 our loved ones come home with little surgical gloves on? I l
25 Lastly, Illinois allows the utility to charge l i
- _:==--
23935.1 355 BRT 1 all of the operating costs onto the consumer, but the 2 profits come from the operating plants. There is no 3 inventive here in Illinois for conservation. There's no 4 incentive for alternative energy, or no incentive for 5 innovative programs. 6 I believe that even if Commonwealth Edison 7 wanted to stop, they couldn't because of their financial 8 interests and investments in the plant. 9 I would like to present the business and 10 professional people for the public interest briefing book 11 on cancelling Commonwealth's Braidwood Nuclear Power 12 Station, a cost / benefit analysis, into this. O) (_ 13 It states that we could, or it suggests that we 14 could stop the plant right now, pay back Commonwealth 15 Edison plus 12 percent interest, and still come out $200 16 million ahead. 17 Do we need the energy? Your Honor, we don't 18 need this energy. The risk -- as minute as you think it 19 is, the risk is not worth it for that plant. And it's a 20 lot more riskier than you think. There's a lot more 21 problems down there than you know, than the NRC knows. 22 Commonwealth, again, reports, states that the 23 NRC knows possibly 20 percent of the problems down at the 24 plant. I suggest we might end up, one of these days, with 25 another, at least, Three Mile Island accident, and no
23935.1 356 BRT O 1 doubt it will probably be one run by Commonwealth Edison. 2 I would like to just leave you with two 3 pictures that were submitted, or that were given to me by 4 friends. One was a cartoon that appeared directly after 5 the decision in January of 1984, on Byron, and it shows -- 6 this appeared in the Rockville Journal in January of 1984. 7 It shows Commonwealth Edison employees dressed as Larry, 8 Moe, and Curly. 9 And then also when Judge Callihan and Judge 10 Cole visited the plant in March of 1983, we visited the 11 control room, and I have a picture of what we saw in the 12 control room. It's a railing with a little life buoy in (') 13 there. And on the life buoy it says, " Titanic." Again, 14 indicative of what the workers thought of the plant at the 15 time. 16 And I thank you very much for the time. 17 JUDGE BRENNER: If you'll permit me, unlike the 18 other documents that I said we'd bind in, I'd ask you to 19 hold the report on the costs because, as I have already 20 discussed with another speaker, that's not before us. And 21 I'd ask you to -- I'll look at the cartoons if you have 22 copies for me, but I don't want to put them in a 23 transcript because we don't like people to be too 24 entertained reading our transcripts, but we will bind in
., 25 the other documents that I said we would.
-------n , - , - , , ,
-------w
23935.1 357 BRT wJ 1 Thank you very much. 2 I have one more speaker on my list, Alyson 3 Boman Conn. 4 MS. BOMAN CONN: I'm Alyson Boman Conn, I live 5 in Rockford at 33 Fisher Street. I hadn't expected to say 6 anything today, but I felt there were a few points that 7 needed a little elaboration, both in previous testimony 8 and in response to previous testimony from the three -- 9 from the judges. 10 I am a member of Sinnissippi Alliance for the 11 Environment but I am not representing that group right now. 12 Some of the points that I'm going to make are based on my . () 13 participation in a survey and investigation that SAF did 14 last summer as part of its laborious, many year research 15 effort on the Byron nuclear power plant, both as the plant 16 prepared to open and finally now that it is open. 17 Last year, SAF, with it's very few members, 18 among other things, checked each of the Commonwealth 19 Edison's -- each of Commonwealth Edison's followings of 20 the required safety steps for evacuation if evacuation 21 should be necessary. One of the research efforts that I 22 was involved in was traveling around the local countryside 23 within the EPZ, interviewing people to determine whether 24 they were able to hear the sirens. We were trying to
,- 25 figure out whether the siren system was adequate. I
(_)
i 23935.1 358 l BRT O 1 discovered very many people were not able to hear the j 2 sirens, either because they were farmers running their 4 i 3 machinery or because of the climatic situations, wind 1 i 4 would carry the sound of the siren away from them or j 5 because of hills that were between them and the sirens. 6 Judge Brenner has indicated that through 7 pleasant cooperation between anyone who notices a flaw in 8 the warning system and local governments and Commonwealth ! 9 Edison, a problem like this can be corrected. i i 10 SAF did contact local governments that were 11 involved in helping to create the evacuation system, and 1 12 to this day the siren system has not been expanded in any
- () 13 way.
14 I hope that you're thinking that such a method j 15 is not a naive thought, but that has been our experience. ' 16 And I suspect that our experience will be similar to the 17 experiences of people in other areas that might or might 18 not have a new nuclear power plant opening up there. 19 Another thing that I discovered when we were 20 doing this bit of research was that farmers whose land 21, borders the Rock River, which is where the Byron plant
~
. 22 gets its cooling water from, were experiencing a lot of 23 fog that they feel interferes with their farming 24 operations. 25 A previous witness had mentioned his concern 4 t
,y . . e - -a-- * *e - e-
-e ww ,mv-, m e-e,e----e -r- -r g.-4, y -ew -- - -- y #r .y w --vwg-- --- --e. .y---u
l 23935.1 359 I BRT i O 1 about fog and how it would interfere with safe driving and 2 illumination of the streets in his town. Once again, 3 based on our experience and our observation, that's a very 4 likely thing to occur -- just meteorologically it will 5 probably occur quite frequently. 6 The man from the local ASDA agency or whatever 7 it is called, had mentioned that the warning system and 6 all the efforts that he was putting together in his -- and 9 his agency were putting together seemed to be working 10 pretty fairly as of this point. 11 They have to work perfectly. You can't have a 12 system that works pretty fair. You are going to lose a () 13 lot of people. Safety will be jeopardized. It's got to 14 be perfect and it's a very, very difficult enterprise to 15 come up with a perfect system. So far those of us who 16 live around Byron aren't assured that we have a perfect 17 system there, and I doubt that people will have one here 18 either. 19 Part of putting together this elaborate plan 20 for evacuation involves a large expenditure of money from 21 local government agencies. Joliet and Rockford are 22 probably very similar areas that have lost a lot of 23 industry, that are financially strapped, and money has to 24 come from the tax base, a tax base that's dwindling. It's 25 not going to come from Commonwealth Edison. There's a lot
.. , ,_ . = . _. _ __
23935.1 360 BRT r (s 1 of red tape in creating these evacuation plans, making 2 sure things are enforced, beefing up the sheriff's office 3 to make sure that laws are observed, and coordinating 4 everything, and then monitoring everything every so often, 5 and then checking them, and it's the last thing that a-6 newly impoverished municipality can afford to create and 7 monitor. 8 Let's see, I also think that Diane Chaves' 9 suggestion to you that you conduct an independent 10 investigation, if you discover any issues on your own that 11 have not been brought up by witnesses, is a valid one. I 12 think that you are empowered to do that. I hope that any () 13 understanding wouldn't prevent you fran doing it, but I , 14 think that it is within your purview to do that. And 15 those are the issues that sprang into my head as I sat 16 here and observed the proceedings. 17 JUDGE BRENNER: Ms. Chaves raised two different 18 things. I think she recognized they are two different 19 things by the way she raised them. 20 In any event they are two different things. 21 One is an independent investigation, and it wasn't a 22 matter of staffing. I didn't even get to that point. 23 It's a matter of the institutional separation of the 24 judicial function from the investigative, prosecutorial 25 function. We are independent from the agency and we sit,
23935.1 361 BRT /m (), 1 other than administrative support, and we sit as judges. 2 The agency is charged with the investigatory 3 responsibilities and those people work for them, and they A have management authority over them, unlike over us. 5 The other thing is we have the authority to 6 raise issues in the proceeding on our own, sua sponte. 7 That's the Latin -- that's different. And we are aware of 8 that power and authority. 9 MS. BOMAN CONN: Can you conduct another branch 10 of the agency to investigate a topic if there's something 11 that hasn't been brought up? 12 JUDGE BRENNER.: Yes. () 13 MS. BOMAN CONN: Then please do so, and please 14 involve yourself fully and do the kind of careful research 15 that SAF has done itself in the course of the past four or 16 five years. 17 JUDGE BRENNER: Thank you very much. Give us 18 one moment, please, before we adjourn. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 JUDGE BRENNER: We'd like to have filed -- we'd 21 like to have filed with the board at the time it's . 22 prepared, the report of analyses of the plan and test of 23 the alert notification system, within the pollutant 24 exposure emergency planning zone, the approximately lO-mile 25 emergency zone, and that is primarily, but not exclusively O . . . - ~ . . _ . . . - . . . . _ . , _ . .. .
23935.1 362 BRT C U 1 the siren system -- to be filed with the board and 2 furnished to the parties in the case and we'll all look at 3 it at that time. I'm not setting a schedule, whatever the 4 normal schedule is for its issuance, which will presumably 5 be after the siren is tested. That sometimes is done far 6 in advance of the larger test and it isn't necessary that 7 it await that larger test, although that raay be the case 8 here. 9 In any event we want to see it, and want the 10 other parties to receive a copy also. 11 MS. CHAN: Yes, we'll provide it. 12 JUDGE BRENNER: That would include any reviews () 13 of it, either at the same time or whenever they are ready, 14 such as the federal emergency management agency review. 15 And presumably that report will indicate what the 16 mechanism was for gathering information as to whether 17 people actually were notified during the test; whether it 18 be by siren or by other means or some combination. 19 MS. CHAN: Yes, your Honor, we'll provide it. 20 JUDGE BRENNER: Thank you. 21 Mr. Quigley, did you have something you wanted 22 to raise on the record? 23 MR. QUIGLEY: I would just like to know if I 24 have a right to make a further comment since a personal 25 reference was made of me.
23935.1 363 BRT tm U 1 JUDGE BRENNER: Whether or not you have a right 2 we'll let you do it if you keep it brief, but I don't want 3 to start a round robin precedent at this point. The court 4 reporter, who has moved his cigarettes closer to him, will -- 5 MR. QUIGLEY: Good. Hang in there. It 6 actually deals with Mr. Talarico's statement. Whether I 7 was in error or not, I played -- I basically asked a 8 question. There may have been an error in the mileage as 9 far as evacuation goes, but to me I don't consider it an 10 error. Maybe it's an error on the NRC's part not to 11 consider 100 miles rather than limiting it to 10 miles. 12 But more, my consideration is that if you () 13 should look at an emergency response only with the idea of 14 a pie and cutting it into slices and watching the windfall, 15 I'm hoping that the people who happen to live without -- 16 are outside that one slice by a few inches, where do they 17 come into consideration on the emergency response program? 18 JUDGE BRENNER: He's invited you into his 19 office. Presumably you can call him. 20 MR. QUIGLEY: Living in Kankakee, this is one 21 of my concerns -- we are approximately 22 miles away, as 22 the bird flies. Beyond a lO-mile stretch, depending upon 23 the wind velocity, depending upon the conditions of the 24 atmosphere, you know, where do the Kankakeeans come in in 25 regards to proper notification for emergency response i )
23935.1 364 BRT O 1 should a major, or at least the worst-type accident should 2 occur? And then when you begin to look further north 3 where the population density becomes much greater, where 4 do we begin to look at that? So I hope that the NRC, and 5' I hope that you as the judges will look into, again, the 6 detailedness of the evacuation plans, and I hope that they 7 aren't as simple as they were spoken about. Thanks. 8 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me tell you that you are 9 not within the area to look to for possible evacuation or 10 sheltering in the event of possible emergency. You are 11 within the larger 50-mile area in the case of a major 12 accident, for which measures are taken, primarily with . () 13 respect to the food chain and drinking waters and very 14 careful screening of milk and things of that nature. So 15 you are covered by emergency actions but they are not the 16 emergency actions that you addressed in your previous 17 statement. 18 MR. QUIGLEY: All right. Thank you very much 19 for the extra opportunity. 20 MS. TOPOLSKI: I do have a question, a short 21 one. 22 JUDGE BRENNER: I should have told you _ 23 Ms. Topolski, to reinforce your point about euphemisms, 24 when Mr. Talarico referred to reactor trips he didn't mean 25 excursions either. But go ahead.
23935.1 365 BRT 1 MS. TOPOLSKI: But who does set mileage, 10 2 miles, 20, 50, 100? Who sets the limits? 3 JUDGE BRENNER: Judge Cole stated that earlier 4 and I'll repeat it. It is set by regulation of the 5 Commission. It is not a precise 10 miles. It is an 6 approximation of 10 miles for which relatively minor 7 adjustments are made in each case for reasons of 8 conforming to jurisdictional boundaries and any particular 9 matters. 10 MS. TOPOLSKI: I have to say that then, because 11 it was a while back, maybe they have improved by then, too,
, 12 but the point was here when we can, by an accident,
() 13 destroy 34 villages, that's more than beyond 10 miles. 14 I think the way, depending on the wind, we are involving 15 more than 10 miles and beyond the 50 miles -- and that's 16 why I was concerned about evacuation shelters. How are we 17 going to get everybody fast enough into those shelters? I 18 haven't seen a plan on that one. 19 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm sorry, I didn't follow you. 20 You were talking about 34 miles or 34 villages? 21 MS. TOPOLSKI: 34 villages. 22 JUDGE BRENNER: Within 10 miles? 23 MS. TOPOLSKI: No, no, that was 112 miles, to 24 be exact. 25 JUDGE BRENNER: I don't know where you got that i i
23935.1 366 BRT .~J 1 distance from? Where is your starting point? 2 MS. TOPOLSKI: I'll give you the name of it, it 3 was the Ural Mountains, that has been finally verified, 4 and the 34 villages are not there. I'm trying to learn 5 from somewhere, where mistakes were made before so we 6 don't repeat the same mistakes again. What I want to say 7 is 10 miles is not sufficient. That's what I'm saying. 8 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. I understand your 9 reference now. I don't believe that there is an 10 allegation that that was a nuclear power plant, that is a 11 nuclear power plant generating station -- 12 MS. TOPOLSKI: It dealt with the same radiation -- () 13 JUDGE BRENNER: Oh, yes. It dealt with 14 radiation. I think the plant there was a different plant. 15 Different type. 16 MS. TOPOLSKI: The district was a little 17 different but it dealt still with plutonium and the same 18 material. This is what I'm referring to. But I do refer 19 to, in case of an accident you know how the public reacts, 20 there's panic, everybody runs, try to run on the same 21 street, you won't get fast enough out of the city. Where 22 are they going to and how are we going to approach -- this 23 is what I'm concerned about. 24 JUDGE BRENNER: That is looked at, although not 25 necessarily an issue before us, but I don't want you to be
23935.1 367 BRT O 1 misled. What is looked at for possible evacuation is an 2 approximately 10 mile distance and it is set by regulation. 3 MS. TOPOLSKI: I have to stick by 10 miles is
, 4 not sufficient.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: I understand, but that's 6 regulation we have to apply. 7 JUDGE COLE: And we have to abide by the 8 regulation, so your quarrel is maybe with the Commission's 9 regulations are not adequate, but that's not addressed in 10 this particular forum. 11 , MS. TOPOLSKI: With the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission. I understand that. But can you not recommend () 13 it though, there's something wrong?
~ , 14 JUDGE BRENNER: Not unless we see something 15 peculiar at a particular plant. But let me tell you in 16 fairness to the Commission, that wasn't a number they 17 pulled out of the air. In their view they went through 18 quite extensive background studies and models of nuclear 19 fission releases from a commercial nuclear power plant of 20 the type in operation in this country to arrive at that 21 figure.
22 MS. TOPOLSKI: Okay. Thank you so much for 23 coming. Thank you. 24 JUDGE BRENNER: Thank you very much for coming. 25 I'll say that to all of you and have a good evening.
23935.1 368 BRT O 1 Thank you again. 2 Thanks for ordering up the weather you ordered 3 up for us today. 4 (Whereupon, at 9:05 p.m., the hearing was 5 concluded.) - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . O 13 14 15 16
'17 18 19 j 20 l
l 21 22 23 24 25 l l u . - . . . . _ .
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) DOCKET NO.: 50-456; 50-457 PLACE: JOLIET, ILLINOIS DATE: TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comunission. (sigt)
.__ / /
[ JOEL BREITNER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Reporter's Affiliation O}}