ML20199A135
| ML20199A135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1997 |
| From: | Block J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR37374, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 60FR37374, NUDOCS 9711170071 | |
| Download: ML20199A135 (146) | |
Text
.,
a 00CKETED JONATHAN M. BLOCK USHRC ATTORNEY AT LAW
'97 OCT Z7 P4 ;40 Main 5treet P.O. Box 566 rN:'eg tepBERg g yCd-$/
OFjg CQ?}gQ 26 o
J c.UE ic ym e
, V + r-
-2667 ( fax)
( 60 PR 31371 October 24,1997 The Chairman and Commissioners, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE:
Petition for immediate rescission of the current decommissioning mies, conducting a site-specific health study and EA and/or EIS, and provision for hearing on the decommissioning plan for the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station at Haddam Neck, Connecticut (Docket no. 50-213)
Dear Chairman Jackson and Commissioners Diaz,
Dicus, and McGafligan:
By this letter my clients, Citizens Awareness Network of Shelbume Falls, Massachusetts and Haddam, Connecticut (CAN], and Nuclear Information and Resources Service of Washington, D.C., [NIRS], petition yi ir agency to immediately rescind the illegal decommissioning rules which your agency made final on July 29,1996. CAN and NIRS also petition, in the matter of the pending decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Dkt. 50 213),
' The organizations listed below endorse CAN's and NIRS's request that the decommissioning mies require: (1) license amendments to recognize the difference between operating a nuclear power reactor and taking it spart, (2) detailed decommissioning plans submitted for public inspection and 1
consideration by the public and NRC prior to NRC approval in an ac' judicatory process open to interested persons; (3) site specific environmental assessments [EA] and/or impact studies [EIS]
prior to approval of decommissioning plans.
Campaign for Rai payers Rights, P.O. Box 463, Concord, NH 03301 Citizens Regulatory Commission,180 Great Neck Road, Waterford, CT 06385 Don't Waste Connecticut,97 Longhill Terrace, New Haven, CT Don't Waste Michigan, P.O. Box 463, Monroe, MI 48161-0463 Fish Unlimited,1 Brander Parkway, ShelterIsland, N.Y. I1965 Friends of the Coast Opposing Nuclear Pollution, P.O. Box 98, Edgecomb,ME 04556 Long Island SHAD Al!%nce,333 Terry Rd., Smithtown, NY 11787 Massachusetts Citiz ens for Safe Energy, 29 Temple Place, Boston, MA 02111; New England Coalition on Nuclear Follutien, P.O. Box 545, Brattleboro, VT 05302 Peoptr's Action for Clean Energy,101 Lawton Road, Canton, CT 06019 2209 I
Peconic Greens,24 Horseshoe Drive, East Hampton, NY I1937 Seacoast Anti Pollution League, P.O. Box 1136, Portsmouth,NH 03802-1136 g1 Q h 9711170071 971024
[l,lillll!llllilli $llll!!!lilll.l,i h
52o457a74 eon
o e
s0-CAN's and NIR *: Letter to U.S. NRC, Requeseing Rule Rescission and Page 2
. Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(I0/24/97) that'your agency conduct a site specific EA and/or EIS on the proposed decommissioning method, with particular attention to impacts upon the human and natural environment, and that your agency conduct a license amendment hearing on the decommissioning plan. CAN and NIRS contend. herein, in support of these requests, _ that your agency's failure to maintain decommissioning rules which provide an opportunity for public participation through the use of license amendment proceedings, and your agency's failure to take the responsibility for conducting a s:te-specific health study and EA and/or EIS of the propos-d decommissioning plan's impacts on the human and natural environment, are arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and i
otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 6706(2)(A), the Atomic Energy.
Act,4.2 U.S.C. {} 2239,2133(c),2133(d), and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
!4332.
CAN and NIRS believe t at mounting evidence already known to you, and as partially presented herein, particularly the course of events leading up to and including preparations for the impendiag Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station decommissioning, overwhelmingly supports the contention that your agency's current decommissioning rules fail to adequately protect public and occupational health and safety, endanger the human and natural environment, and fail to provide the procedural environmental protections which the National Environmental Policy Act requires of your agency.
CAN and NIRS contend that, in order to assure adequate protection of public and occupational health 'and safety, and carry out the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, your agency needs to have decommissioning mies which, at a minimum, require: (1)
I license amendments to recognize the difference between operating a nuclear power reactor and taking it apart, (2) detailed decommissioning plans submitte'd for public inspection and consideration by the public and NRC prior to NRC approval in an adjudicatory process open to interested persons; (3) site-specific environmental assessments and/or impact studies prior to approval of decommissioning plans.2 Supporting this petition, CAN and NIRS' set forth as follows:
L Factual Background 1.
On July 20, 1995, following CAN's attempts, from November 1992 through January 1994, to obtain a hearing on the decommissioning plan for the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power
- These requirements would guarantee the opportunity for the public, co-owning non licensees, creditors, vendors, state authorities, and any other interested persons to request a hearing on the proposed decommissioning plan for a nuclear reactor facility. They also guarantee that prior to your agency's allowing the decommissioning process to go forward, there would be a site-specific evaluation of the human and natural environmental consequences of the proposed activity and consideration of alternatives to that activity.
8 CAN sad NIRS are not unfamiliar to your agency. Most recently, CAN and NIRS filed 10 CFR (
2.206 petitions for enforcement (November 25,1996, and as supplemented and amended) which are incorporated by reference herein. CAN's and NIRS's addresses appear on the final page of this filing.
4 I
h
CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 3 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/2H97)
Station in Rowe, Massachuse,ts, the United State Coun of Appeals decided Citizens Awareness Network v. UnitedStatesNuclear Regulatory Commission, 59 F.3d 284 (lst Cit.1995) [CAN v.
NRC), in CAN's favor.
2.
CAN's winning case was based upon three arguments. First, that your agency's change in policy which denied CAN a hearing was irrational on its face, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Q706(2)(A). Second, that permitting the Component Removal Program [CRP]-i.e., commencement of major federal action in the form of agency regulated and funding-controlled decontamination and dismantlement of a nuclear power reactor prior to a site-specific EA or EIS-violated the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Q 4332.
Third, that your agency's permitting the holder of an operating license to begin major decommissioning activity (the CRP) was an illegal de facto license amendment without the requisite {l89(a) hearing process, which action illegally denied CAN the opportunity of a hearing upon request as guarante-d by the Atomic Energy Act [AEA],42 U.S.C. 2239(a)(1)(a). See CAN
- v. NRC, 59 F.3d at 284-292,290-292,292-93,294-96 (recounting facts of the case and dealing with the aforementioned three issues).
3.
Despite the fact that the CAN v. NRC Court recounted the incredible number of times your agency rebuffed CAN's requests for a hearing, instead of granting t hearing in response to l
the Court's decision, your agency first solicited public opinion about whether CAN should get a headng or not. Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station),42 NRC 130, 133 (October 12, 1995). Your eventual decision to allow CAN the opportunity to request a l
hearing was not final until October 27,1995--more than three months after the Court's decision.
l 4.
On July 20, 1995, the same day the Court handed down its decision, your agency published a notice in the Federal Register proposing to change the decommissioning rules in ways whichinstitutionalized the events over which CAN had taken your agency to Court in the first place. Decommissioning Of Power Reactors, 60 Fed.. Reg. 37374 (July 20,1995).
Your I
agency's proposal to make a major alteration in the decommissioning rule requirements and hearing opportunities provided only a 90 day comment penod, closing on October 18, 1995.
Your agency provided this short comment period despite the fact that the rules you were changing had been in efTect for 7 years, and nearly iden'ical changes to your policies hadjust been the subject of a litigation invalidating these changes See generally, CANv. NRC,59 F.3d 234 (1st Cir.1995). Moreover, your agency chose not recall the rule to reevaluate it in the light of the Court's opinion even though that opinica had a direct beanng upon the legality of the proposed rules.
5.
The proposed chan3es to the decommissioning rules permit licensees to start major l
decommissioning activities: (1) without prior NRC approval of a detailed decommissioning plan, l
(2) without a license amendment recognizing the completely altered purpose and type of I
activities the licensee will conduct under the license, and (3) without conducting a site-specific health study and EA and/or EIS to compare the effects of possible decommissioning methods upon the local human and natural environment and account for any sp'ecial environmental
' ' C N's andNIR's Lc:er to U.S. NBC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 4 Hearing on HadJam Neck Decommissioning,(10/2H97)
+
remediation which must take place.
6.
Your agency's response to the United States Court c,f Appeal's decision of CAN v. NRC was to let the clock run while you decided whether to give CAN the hearing to which it was entitled. Meanwhile, your agency's foot-dragging permitted Yankee Atomic Electric Company to continue illegally decommissioning the Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts,until wellinto the month of November. Your agency rationalized side-stepping the urgency of the Court's decision through semantic games. For example, your agency described the " completed" CRP as if it were entirely separable from the licensee's overall plan to immediately decontaminate and disassemble the Yankee Rowe reactor facility, i.e. use of the "DECON" decommissioning method. In this way, as in your rule, you attempt to rationalize treating this process as continued operation " bounded" by the environmental impacts of operation assayed in the original license. Additionally, to prevent CAN from immediately challenging the legality of your proposed rule changes, you grandfathered in CAN's hearing pro:ess at Yankee Rowe. Decommissioning Power Reactors [ Final Rule), 61 Fed. Reg. 39278, 39280 (July 29,1996).
7.
CAN and NIRS filed comments on the proposed decommissioning rules within the 90 day period following Federal Register publication of the proposed rule. See Deborah Katz, President, Citizens Awareness Network, Comments on ".. Decommissioning Nuclear Power Reactors" (filed October 16, 1995), Exhibit 1, attached hereto; Paul Gunter, Reactor Watchdog Project, Nuclear Information and Resource Service," Comments on NRC Proposed Amendments to Rulemaking on Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," (filed October 18, 1995),
Exhibit 2, attached hereto.
NIRS,in pertinent part, made the following points in its comments:
NRC attempting to codify through regulation what the First Circuit said they could legally do; Removal of large components should be evaluated in a decommissioning plan and should not take place until plan approval; All large component dismantlement activities undertaken after a facility shuts down should be managed under an approved decommissioning plan; The NRC should retain the distinction between an operating license and a possession a
only license;i.e., the NRC should not attempt to eliminate the availability of a hearing forinterested persons by eliminating the requirement of a license amendment when a i ;ensee changes the reactor status to that of a shutdown facility; NIRS also contends t, '.t this amendment is contrary to the Court's holding in CAN v. NRC; i
l
\\-
CAN's andMR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page$
Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97)
A site characterization should be included in the initial phase of decommissioning CAN, in pertinent pan, made the following points in its cominents:
The Commission should withdraw the proposed rules changes, revising them to conform to the Court's holdings in CANv. NRC; Nuclear power generators should not be given broad discretion to regulate themselves; the NRC should not delegate this authority as it is responsible for protecting public and worker health and safety and the environment during decommissioning; The NRC must retain the disti.ition between operations and cessation of operation of nuclear power reactors; The opportunity for a pubic hearing on decommissioning should not be withdrawn; Public' hearings are a means through which communities may participate in making decisions that vitally affect them; Public hearings ahow democracy to endure and institutions to be accountable for their actions; Offering a hearing at the termination oflicense stage rather than at the cessation of operations stage reduces citizen participation; Major component removal should not be authorized until submission and approval of a decommissioning plan by the NRC; Public meetings do not afTord citizens the level of institutional accountability necessary in considering how a nuclear reactor will be decommissioned, given the dangers of enviro-toxic contamination following reactor cessation; Decommissioning is a major federal action requiring compliance with NEPA; an generic EIS cannot substitute for a site-spe.:ific one,just as computer modeling is no substitute for actua! testing; the appellate court recognized this, stating that it is without dispute that decommissioning is a major federal action which, even under the Commission's new policy, requires NEPA compliance under 10 CFR 51.95(b).
The new rules are the NRC's attempt to streamline the decommissioning process for the utility and " deregulate" NRC requirements; as such, the mies are an abdication of the NRC's responsibility to protect the health and safety of workers and the public, l
CAN's andNIR's Letter to U.S NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 6 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/w97) i the environment; the rules also undermine citizen due process; the justifications for the rules changes lack substance; Remediation of the reactor site is important to reactor communities; removal of highly irradiated components pose hazards to the host community and worker at reactor facilities; Presence of a resident inspector during decommissioning is essential to maintain safety; Although the continued releases of radioactive effluents into the local community were at lower levels than during reactor operation, such continued releases are of great concern to a reactor community which has been subjected to long-term exposure to low-level radiation; any continuing level of exposure raises concems; Given recent findings on the carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity of tritium, the standard for tritium releases should be lowered from 740 Bq/L for drinking water to zero, following the standard promulgated in Canada of immediate reduction to 100 Bq/L, 20 Bq/L within five years, eventual zero release goal; moreover, present standards should address evaporation of tritium into the atmosphere and secondary ingestion pathways through vegetation, inhalation, and ingestion; Communities in the effluent pathways of reactors must have the opportunity to participate in pollution reduction and prevention during the decommissioning process; participation must be meaningful, not the kind of passive participation fostered by informational meetings-a method which the First Circuit specifically rejected as a substitute for hearings: citizens must have a substantive role in the decommissionirig process to clarify, negotiate and protect their community's interests, and to satisfy the requirements of a constitutional democracy.
8.
Both CAN's and NIRS's comment letters raised the issue of your agency's compliance with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in CAN v. NRC, yet your agency's response to these comments was to focus upon the Court's concern that your agency "had not adequately provided the reasoning for the NRC decision to allow decommissioning activities before NRC approval of a licensee-submitted decommissioning plan (59 F.3d at 291-292), a decision that the court considered to be a modification of the Commission's decommissioning regulations." Final Rule on Decommissioning,61 Fed. Reg. 39285-39286. You go on to state that the court noted that the Commission had failed to provide either a rulemaking proceeding or a hearing to address what the court perceived to be NRC approvals oflicensee decommissioning activities (59 F.3d at 291-92,294-95). By initiation
' ' C N's andNIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and page Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,()0/24/97) of a notice of proposed miemaking and solicitation of comeent (July 20,1995; 60 Fed. Reg. 37374), the Commission addressed the reasoning underlying the proposed decommissioning process and allowed public review and comment on that reasoning.
/d However, as is detailed below, this explanation completely misses the CAN v. NRC Court's substantive points concerning both your agency's failure to offer a rational explana~ tion for its change in policy, and its attempt to illegally expand the licensing basis of a facility without conducing the " hearing-on-ddmand" license amendment proceeding required under 42 U.S.C.
2239.
9.
Tee issues in this petition relate to the application of the decommissioning rules to the decommisfoning of the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power station at Haddam Neck, Connecticut Haddam Neck is located where the Salmon River flows into the Cc.'necticut River.
See descriptiens of the rivers, the wildlife and historical character, and maps attache'd hereto as Exhibits B-1, B 2, and C-1, which descriptions are, by reference, incorporated herein.
10.
On December 6,1996, the owner-operators of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Haddam Neck, Connecticut, decided to permanently cease operating the facility. Their decision followed a series of post-(temporary) shutdown accidents including, but not limited to:
(a) a potentially extremely dangerous nitrogen bubble incident which drained off nuclear reactor core cooling water; (b) serious radiological contamination ofimproperly protected workers in the fuel chute area; and (c) the revelation that years of crucial operating support documents (the Final Safety Analysis Report [FSAR]) were missing, incorrect, or incomplete. Despite this history and continued incompetent and dangerous actions, the owner-operators claimed purely economic reasons for their decision to permanently cecse operations.
11.
The companies which own the Connecacut Yankee Nuclear Power Station (through Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company) are Northeast Utilities-system companies (49 percent); the New England Power Company (15 percent); The United Illuminating Company (9.5 percent); Boston Edison Company (9.5 percent); Central Maine Power Company (6 percent); Montaup Electric Company (4.5 percent); Cambridge Electric Light Company (4.5 percent), and the Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (2 percent).
12.
Connecticut Yankee, a 582-megawatt nuclear power plant located on the Connecticut River at Haddam Neck, was one of the oldest commercial nuclear power plants in the nation. The NRC operating license for the facility expires in 2007.
13.
Recently, with attention focused on off-site releases of radiation from Connecticut Yankee, including radioactive fill provided for a day-care center, persons living near the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station have begun to report cancer, leukemia, and other diseases which have been linked in some health studies to the presence of ionizing radiation from nuclear reactors. See Affidavit of Rosemary Bassilakis at 9 (discussing anecdotal information
CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page8 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/w97) about cancer and leukemia in the communities around the Connecticut Yankee reactor), Exhibit 6, attached hereto; Stephanie Johnson, " Health studies show mixed results," MIDDLETOWN PRESS at A-1, A-7 (September 18,1997)(National Cancer institute study in 1990 found elevated risk of death to residents in towns around Connecticut Yankee reactor from numerous cancers, including colorectal cancer, other lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, trachea, bronchus and lung cancer, and an elevated incidence risk for liver, lung, bladder, trachea, bronchus and lung cancer for certain age groups), Exhibit C-16, attached hereto; see also Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Health Consultation, " Cancer Incidence and Down Syndrome Prevalence in the Deerfield River Valley," Massachusetts (February 1997) (statistically significant elevation of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Down Syndrome, elevated incidence of breast cancer among women in town of Shelburne, elevation in the incidences of relatively rare multiple myeloma, the only known risk factc. for which is exposure to ionizing radiation).
14 The United States Senators for the state of Connecticut have called for investigations of the operators of the Haddam Neck facility. See Stephanie Johnson,"Dodd calls for broader nuke probe-Senator says CY Haddam fiasco points to bigger problems," THE MIDDLETOWN PRESS at 1,6 (September 19,1997) (requesting Senate hearings e Northeast Utilities's mismanagement and NRC's negligent ovecsight of Connecticut nucl~
"' r reactors, Senata Dodd agrees ratepayers should not have to cover costs connecu...h shutdowns ot' Millstone and Connecticut Yankee reactors), Exhibit C-7, attached hereto, Stephanie Johnson, "Haddam upset by plummeting real estate values--Connecticut Yankee contamination alerts property owners,"
THE MIDDLETOWN PRESS at Al, A6 (September 24,1997) (people trying to sells homes in Haddam having difficulty due to disclosures about contamination at Connecticut Yankee; Connecticut U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman joined Senator Dodd in requesting Senate hearings on problems at Connecticut reactors), Exhibit C-8, attached hereto.
15.
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, where the decommissioning of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station is at the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report stage has joined local citizens in calling for the NRC to return to its old rules and provide hearings on the
' decommissioning plan. See Susan Rayfield, " Residents demand greater voice in Maine Yankee's dismantling," PORTLAND PRESS HERALD at 1 (October 8,1997), Exhibit C-17, attached hereto; Kris Ferrazza, " Senator backs anti-nuke request," LINCOLN COUNTY WEEKLY at I (October 16, 1997); Rick Thackeray,"Snowe asks NRC to bring public back into decommissioning process,"
LINCOLN COUNTY NEWS at 1 (October 16,1997).
16.
The ability of the owner-operators of Connecticut Yartkee to successfully carry out the long-term financir_! aspects of decommissioning, particularly that of Northeast Utilities, may be in serious jeopardy as moves are made to remove all of its closed nuclear reactors from the Connecticut state rate-base. See Paul Choiniere, " State to consider removing Millstone plants from rate base -- Positive decision would reduce ratepayers bills, deal major financial blow to
~
Northeast Utilities," THE DAY at A-1, A-4 (October 1,1997), Exhibit C-9, attached hereto; see also Mike McIntire, "NU Acts To Ease Banks' Fears -- Special Steps To Be Costly," THE HARTFORD COURANT at D-1, D-5 (October 2,1997), Exhibit C-10, attached hereto; Agis
i CAN's andNIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 9 Hearing on Hoddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97) -
l Salpukas, " Market place: Will NU survive N.H. rate cut?," MIDDLETOWN PRESS (from N.Y.
Times) at A-1, A-6 (October 14,1997)(NU also under pressure from effects of New Hampshire deregulation law), Exhibit C-15, attached hereto; Statements of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Exhibit D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, attached hereto (Attsrney General Blumenthal vows to fight allowing Northeast Utilities and other owner-operators of Connecticut Yankee and other Connecticut reactors to collect any ratepayer funds for decommissioning costs related to mismanagement of the reactors at issue).
17.
Despite the presence of a " senior" NRC inspector on site and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company having brought in new management and specialists in decommissioning from Yankee Atomic Electric Company, workers at Connecticut Yankee are still suffering damage to their health from the unending management bungles and ineptitude. See Stephanie Johnson, "CY guards charge chemicals at nuke plant made them sick," M! Dot.ETOwN PRESS at A-1, A-6 (October 2,1997), Exhibit C-11, attached hereto; see also Paul Choiniere, " Connecticut Yankee mishap raises dismantling concerns - NRC cit's safety lapses following exposure incident," THE e
DAY at A-1, A-4 (January 30, 1997), Exhibit C-2, attached hereto; see also Affidavit of Salvatore Mangiagli at 1 11, Exhibit 4, attached hereto.
18.
Major health and safety concems to local residents are coming up on a weekly basis without any NRC health and environmental studies taking place. See Stephanie Johnson,
" Radioactive material found at site of former day-care center," THE HERAt.D at A-8 (October 7, 1998), Exhibit C-12, attached hereto; Mike McIntire, " Search On For Contaminated Fill -
Untested Soil May Have Left Nuclear Plant Site," HARTFORD COURANT at A-1, A-15 (October 8, 1997), Exhibit C-13, attached hereto; Mike McIntire, " Landfill Declared Radiction Zone --
Contamination near nuclear plant," HARTFORD COtJRAvr at A-1, A-17 (October 10, 1997),
Exhibit C-14, attached hereto.
II.
STANDING OF PETITIONERS CAN and NIRS incorporate the facts as alleged above and further set forth as follows:
Satisfying the constitutional component or standing requires that a petitioner has suffered an
" injury in fact," which is to say that a legally protected interest has been invaded. Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Dubois v. U.S. Dept. ofAgriculture,102 F.3d 1273,1281 (1st Cir.1996). The injury must be concrete and personal to the petitioner. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 and n.l. Many others, however, may share ths eme injury, although is cannot be common to everyone. Compare United States v.
Students Challenging Regulatory Procedures [ SCRAP], 412 U.S. 669, 687-88 (1973), with Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (l"75). Moreover, the injury must be ' imminent' or ' actual' not merely ' conjectural' or hypothetical.' Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. It must also be" distinct and palpable." Warth, 422 U.S.
at 501. Environmental or aesthetic injuries will satisfy the latter requirement, and such injuries may amount to merely having a rmall stake in the outcome of the proceeding. SCRAP,412 U.S.
at 501, 689 n.14; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972).
Finally, prudential 1
CAN's and b7R 's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 10 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/2WM) t considerations govern the exercise of federal jurisdiction. These considerations are: (1) that the petitioner's interests fall within the zone of those interests protected by the statutes whose protection is invoked, Allen v. Fright, 468 U.S.- 737, 751 (1984), and (2) that the petitioner asserts his or her own interests and rights without resting the claim for relief upon the rights and interests of third persons /d at 499. An exception to this :ule is the claims of membership organizations on behalf of themselves and affected members. Organizations, such as CAN and NIRS, may assert the claims of members, provided that one or more members would individually
~
satisfy the requirements for standing. UA W v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274, 281-82 (1986).
Your agency previously defined requisite injuries for standing to participate in the context of an NRC proceeding on the approval of a decommissioning plan. You upheld the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's determination that sufficient allegations of harm to satisfy standing may be based upc1 'roximity to the nuclear reactor facility in question coupled allegations of harms to personal health, safety, or use and enjoyment of the local environment. Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station),43 NRC 235,246-248 (1996).
As described below and set forth in the attached aflidavits, and as incorporated herein by reference, CAN't and NIRS's affiants live, work, and partake in recuational activities in suflicient proximity to the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station to satisfy your agency's proximity requirement for standing. A:. further described below and set forth in the referenced attached affidavits, CAN's and NIRS's affiants, based upon your agency's acknowledgment of the decommissioning effects set forth in your Generic Environmental Impact Study on Decommissioning (1988), are reasonably likely to receive some of the public exposures to radiation. See Yankee Atomic Electric Company,43 NRC at 248 (petitioners' regular use of the area near the reactor coupled with exposure to radioactivity during the decommissioning process as anticipated in the Commission's 1988 GEIS on decommissioning, sufficient injuries to justify upholding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruling that petitioners had standing to intervene in decommissioning hearing).
A.
CAN's Affiants' Standing CAN ofTers two affidavits in support of CAN's standing in this matter: Aflidavit cf Salvatore i
Mangingli [Akngiagli Afdavit], Exhibit 4, attached hereto, and Affidavit of Douglas Farber
[Farber Afdavit], Exhibit 5, attached hereto. These affiants +:cribe a number of harms they are suffering or will very soon suffer unless your agency rescinds the decommissioning rule, calls an immediate halt to the decommissioning process at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station, conducts a health study and EA and/or EIS on the consequences to the humr.n and natural environment of CYAPCo's choice of decommissioning option, immediately increases the level of regulatory oversight at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station, and ofTers an
^
adjudicatory public hearing on the decommissioning plans for Connecticut Yankee.
Mr. Mangiagli owns and lives in and a home within 1.25 miles of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station at Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Mangiagli Agdavit at 14, Exhibit 4,
CAN's and NIR 's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page11 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/M/97) attached hereto. Although in the past he was able to enjoy the local environment, to Osh, swim, and recreate in the area around the reactor, your agency's failure to conduct a health study and site-specific EA and/or EIS of the decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee has denied and will continue to deny Mr. Mangiagli such use and enjoyment of the local environment. /d at 15. Mr.
Mangiagliis awareof the effects of the changes to your agency's decommissioning rules, and is aware of, and approves CAN's Comments upon the rules. Id at ji 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 13.
Mr. Mangiagli has authorized CAN to represent him in this matter. Id. at 13.
Mr. Mangingliis likely to experience the radioactive effects of decommissioning described in the GEIS. Living with his family and owning property in Haddam within 1.25 miles of the Connecticut Yankee reactor, Mr. Mangiagli has a stake in the outcome of any proceedings concerning the decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee, particularly the attempt of this petition to obtain public hearings and NEPA compliance. If this petition succeeds, Mr. Mangiagli will be able to take an active role in trying to regain the ability to enjoy the local enviroriment, and try to get CYAPCo to utilize a decommissioning method which will release the lowest amount of radiation reasonably achievable. Thus, he satisnes the requirements for standing which your agency has upheld. Yankee Atomic Electric Company,43 NRC at 246-248.
Mr. Farber lives and carries on legal practice, albeit within 11 miles of the reactor site. Farber Afdavit at i +, Exhibit 5, attached hereto. Mr. Farber is aware of, and approves the Comments CAN submitted conceming the current decommissioning rule.Id at 13. He has authorized CAN '
to represent him in this proceeding. Id Mr. Farber is also concerned that releases of radioactivity during the process of decommissioning Connecticut Yankee will adversely affect him, and this interferes with his use and enjoyment of the natural environment. Farber Afdavit at j 9,10,11,14,15, Exhibit 5, attached hereto. Mr. Farber also states that these exposures to radiation are due to the fact that tlie current decommissioning mies prevent him from meaningfully participating in the. decision making process concerning the method for decommissioning Connecticut Yankee. Id at j 16. He believes that the current rules do not protect his health and safety by failing to provide for an adequate decommissioning plan or plan review process, and allowing a reduced level of regulatory oversight at the facility. Id. at 1117, 18,19,20. If this petition succeeds, Mr. Farber will be able to take an active role in trying to regain the ability to enjoy the local environment, and try to get CYAPCo to utilize a decommissioning method which will release the lowest amount of radiation reasonably achievable. Thus, he satisfies the requirements for standing which your agency has upheld.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company,43 NRC at 246-248.
B.
NIRS's Afriant's Standing Supporting NIRS's standing in this matter is the Affidavit of Rosemary Bassilakis[dassilakis Afdavit, Exhibit 6, attached hereto].
Ms. Bassilakis, a research associate for a private, independent scientific research company, is a member of NIRS, and has lived within approximately 1.25 miles of the Connecticut Yankee reactor for over seven years. Bassilakis Afdavit at j 1,2,4. Living so close to the reactor, Ms. Bassilakis has a stake in the outcome of
CAN's and NIR 's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page12 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/24/97) any proceedings conceming the decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee, particularly the attempt of this petition to obtain public hearings and NEPA compliance. his. Bassilakis describes her concems that releases of radioactivity during the process of decommissioning the Connecticut Yankee nuclear reactor will adversely affect her, and that this will interfere with her use and enjoyment of her home and the natural environment. Bassilakis Agdavit at 118, 9,10, 11,12,15,17. She states that to her knowledge, your agency has taken no steps to comply with laws designed to protect the human and natural environment :: which she lives. Id at 17. She also states that she is aware that other decommissioning methods could be used at Connecticut i
Yankee which would result in lower levels of radiation exposure to her, workers at the reactor, and to her community. Id at 16. Likewise,Ms. Bassilakis states that she is aware of problems which can take place during the course'of using immediate dismantlement which would result in
" hot particles" contaminating workers and being carried randomly into her community. Id at 11 12, 13, 14, 15. If this petition succeeds, Ms. Bassilakis will be able to take an active role in trying to regain the nbility to enjoy the local environment, and try to get CYAPCo to utilize a 1
}
decommissioning method which will release the lowest amount of radiation reasonably achievable, thus lowering her exposure to radiation. Ms. Bassilakis is aware of, and approves NIRS's comments concerning the decommissioning mies changes, and has authorized NIRS and NIRS's attorney to represent her in this matter. Id at 13. Under your agency's precedents, Ms.
Bassilakis has alleged both sufficient proximity and harm to have standing in this matter. Yankee Atomic Electric Company,43 NRC at 246-248.
C.
Organizational Standing CAN and NIRS have participated in timely and relevant manner in the miemaking proceeding which this petition attacks. See Exhibits I and 2, attached hereto. CAN ar'd NIR3 raised the issues contained herein. Id Thus, they are entitled to attack the rule insofar as its illegality stems from your agency's failure to heed CAN's and NIRS's comments on the proposed mle.
l In orderto evaluate the standing of CAN and NIRS in this matter, it is necessary to understand who they are and what they do, as membership organizations. CAN and NIRS, as well as their members whose aflidavits are hereto attached and discussed above, have asked me (attorney Jonathan M. Block) to represent them in this petition and any subsequent proceedings. CAN and NIRS are environmental organizations which may be described as follows:
5 Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) is a non-profit, public interest group with members located near reactor facilities in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire.
CAN is concerred with entire nuclear fuel chain (mining uranium, operating nuclear power reactors, establishing sites for disposal of radioactive waste) and its effects upon the human and natural environment. CAN represents citizens in communities which have experienced economic, environmental, and health impacts of the nuclear fuel chain. Since 1991, CAN has participated in a variety of NRC proceedings, including NRC meetings on reactor embrittlement and decommissioning, miemakings, workshops, enforcement petitions, and adjudicatory hearings.
k
~"
,e CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting R:de Rescission and Page 13 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97)
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) is a nonprofit membership organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C.
NIRS is dedicated to providing information and assistance to people concemed about the effects upon the human and natural environment of nuclear power, radioactive waste, and renewable energy attematives to nuclear power. NIRS has a world wide membership, including Connecticut residents whose health and safety are a priority of this petition. Since 1978, among other activities, NIRS has participated in nuclear r:gulatory afTairs, including rulemaking, enforcement, and administrative and judicial adjudications on nuclear pow +r station licensing and regulation.
CAN and NIRS predicate their standing in this matter upon the above descriptions, and the harm to memben who have authorized CAN and NIRS to represent them in this proceeding and any subsequent proceeding as set forth and supported in the attached members' aflidavits, Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, attached hereto. Moreover, CAN and NIRS contend that in the event your agency complies with the requests contained in this petition, the harms suffered by its members, as described abcve, will be remedied in so far as the affiant members will have an opportunity to make their case to your agency, and attempt to assure that the concems they have for their health, safety, and the human and natural environment, will be adequately considered. By granting this petition, the afliants will also be able to have an avenue opened to them to obtain information about the actual levels of radioactive contamination to the local ecosystem -the rivers, plants, fish, birds, and other animals in and about their homes. Such information may assist them in understanding the actual level of risk of cancer to which they and their families have been subjected, and, hopefully, restore their abilities to enjoy and appreciate the local environment in and about their homes.
CAN and NIRS members near the Haddam Neck reactor are particularly concemed that the communitiesliving around Connecticut Yankee have similar disease incidences to those revealed in the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Health Consultation," Cancer Incidence and Down Syndrome Prevalence in the Deerfield River Valley," Massachusetts (February 1997). See Mcmgiagli Apidavit at 1%5,17,18; Farber Ajidavit at $$10,1l,15; Bassilakis Affidavit at 9,10,11,13,15.1 This health " consultation" found, given reservations about the size of the sample, statistically significant elevation of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Down Syndrome in the Deerfield River Valley during 1982 to 1992. M at 27. Additionally, an elevated incidence of breast cancer among women was observed in the town of Shelbume during the period 1987 to 1992. Significantly, there was also an observed elevation in the incidences of multiple myeloma, a rare form of blood cancer. M at 28. "(T]his type of cancer is relatively rare and the only known risk factor is exposure to ionizing radiation." M CAN originally asked the NRC to stop the rapid dismantlement and decontamination (CRP) of the Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor to conduct and EIS and a health study before allowing any funher level of ionizing radiation and radioactive efliuents to be released intc, the Deerfield River Valley communities.
Given what CAN and NIRS view as the confirmation of CAN's public health concerns at Rowe,
CAN's endNIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Paget4 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10twp7) hiassachusetts, coupled with recent studies showing elevated levels of many of the same kinds of cancerin the vicinity of Connecticut Yankee, CAN and NIRS members living near the reactor
. believe they have good reason to be worried. They believe that the NRC shculd conduct an EIS
.nd health study before any decommissioning activity is permitted at Connecticut Yankee, particularly decommissioning activities which would result in the release of any ionizing radiation or radioactive efiluents into the local community. Compare hiassachusetts Department of Public Health's Health Consultation, " Cancer Incidence and Down Syndrome Prevalence in the Deerfield River Valley," hiassachusetts (February 1997), with Stephanie Johnson, " Health studies show mixed results," hi!DDLETOWN PRESS at A-1, A-7 (September 18,1997) (National Cancer institute study in 1990 found elevated risk of death to residents in towns around Connecticut Yankee reactor from numerous cancers, including colorectal cancer, other lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, trachea, bronchus and lung cancer, and an elevated incidence risk for liver, lung, bladder, trachea, bronchus and lung cancer for certain age groups), Exhibit C-16, attached hereto.
CAN and NIRS members believe that your agency could relieve their legitimate concerns over occupational and public health and safety issues, as well as actually taking the proper steps to assure the same, by ordering a health study and an EIS prior to allowing any decommissioning activity to take place at Connecticut Yankee. If your agency grants this petition, afTected CAN and NIRS members would have the relief they are seeking. Such reliefis due them under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, insofar as your agency is obligated to take a hard look at the human and natural environmental impacts of proposed actions, including cumulative impacts, before allowing a commitment of resources to a major fedemi action, such as decommissioning. NEPA,42 U.S.C. s 4332; CANv. NRC, 58 F.3d at 294-l 295 (Court held even part of the DECON process to be major federal action requiring EA and/or EIS). Conducting the requisite health study to supplement a site specific EA and/or EIS on the proposed decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee would provide afTected CAN and NIRS members with an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, and to obtain relief of their legitimate concerns about how the proposed project will affect the environment in which l
they live. htoreover, such reliefis consistent with your agency's mandate to assure occupational and public health and safety in the utilization of radioactive materials. 42 U.S.C. 2133(d).
l l
- III, EXPERT OPINION SUPPORTING CAN'S AND NIRS'S PETITION Incorporating the facts as alleged above, CAN and NIRS further set forth as fellows:
l l
CAN's and NIRS's Expert Evaluation of the Decommissioning Rules and as applied to the Proposed Haddam Neck Decommissioning CAN and NIRS obtained an expert evaluation of the effects of the current (new) decommissioning mles upon the proposed decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear l
Power Station at Haddam Neck, Connecticut. In his affidas 't, attached hereto as Exhibit 3, Dr.
hfarvin ResnikofT, as qualified therein and by his attachments thereto to offer expert opinion on
CAN's and NIR 's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Paget$
Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/2H97) the subject, states, in summary, that the new decommissioning rule does not require an adequate decommissioning plan or hearing process, both of which are necessary to assure the safe decommissioning of a nuclear power reactor. Under the new decommissioning mie, the public has no hearing rights. Further, the 1988 GEC on decommissioning, prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, does not support the new decommissioning rule and the activities it permits.
There are environmental consequences for the two possible methods of decommissioning which are site specific and should be evaluated at each reactor site. But, an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on site-specific consequences of the chosen decommissioning options for Haddam Neck has not been prepared.
Site specific contamination and site-specific transportation infrastmeture issues at Haddam Neck requires an EIS be done immediately, before CYAPCo is allowed to irreversibly commit major resources to a particular method of decommissioning and to carry heavy loads over narrow, windy rural roads.
Finally, the new decommissioning rule does not adequately protect the public health and safety in that it essentially turns regulation over to the licensees. There is no real difference between the Component Removal Project which took place at Yankee Rowe and which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held to be illegal, and what will soon take place at Haddam Neck under CYAPCo's PSDAR which epts for rapid Acontamination and dismantlement (LECON)of the reactor.
Id. at 1 13.
Inadequacy of the PSDAR for Connectiat Yankee Dr. Resnikoff's comparison of NU's (Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company [CYAPCo])
PSDAR for decommissioning the Haddam Neck facility [ Connecticut Yankee] with the decommissioning documents prepared for the decommissioning of the Yankee Atomic Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, Massachusetts [ Yankee Rowe], reveal that the PSDAR consists of 10 pages devoted to its environmental, safety, and decommissioning plans compared with over 900 pages for Yankee Rowe's decommissioning plans prepared under the fonner decommissioning rules.Id at 14 (a). Thus, the CYAPCo PSDAR is inadequate. Id. at 11 14,15,19.
PSDAR for Connecticut Yankee Inadequately Evaluates Environmental Issues For the Yankee-Rowe reactor, Yankee Atomic Electric Company [YAEC] prepared a
" Decommissioning Environmental Report" (~100 pgs), and a " Supplementary Environmental Report, Post-Operating License k.q,e" (~100 pgs), which discussed the site-specific environmental impact of decommissioning the Yankee Rowe reactor. Id. "CYAPCo devoted two pages to the environmental impact of decommissioning " ResnikofAfdavit at 14(a), Exhibit 3,
i CAN's and NIR 's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 16.
Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/2H97) attached hereto. This is plainly inadequate. /d at 1114,15,19.
PSDAR for Connecticut Yankee Inadequately Evaluates Safety Issues YAEC produced a " Final Safety Analysis Repon" (FSAR) (~400 pgs) incorporating step-by-step detailed decommissioning plans, revised Technical Specifications, radiation survey readings, and estimated occupational exposures. FSAR also and analyzed radioactive waste management and potential accidents. Id Additionally, NRC Staff produced a Safety Evaluation Report (~30 pgs) based on the FSAR. Id at l 14(a). This, the PSDAR for Connecticut Yankee is not adequate. Id at1114,15,19.
PSDAR for Connecticut Yankee Inadequate As A Decommissioning Plan In this regard, Dr. ResnikofTstates:
YAEC also produced a " Decommissioning Plan" (~500 pgs) which contained a detailed facility description, decommissioning activities and planning, radiological survey and worker protection program, accident analysis, decommissioning cost estimate, decommissioning technical specifications, and a decommissioning quality assurance plan. In contrast. the CYAPCo's PSDAR for the Haddam Neck reactor igas only ten pages devoted to the same topics as the above 900+ pages for the decommissioning of ti e Yankee Rowe reactor.
f l ResnikofAfdcvit at 114(a), Exhibit 3, attached hereto (emphasis added). It is patently absurd for your ager.cy to maintain that CYAPCo's PSDAR is an adequate basis for permitting decommistioning of the Connecticut Yankee reactor. Id. at 11 14,15,19.
Other S!te-Specific Problems and Inndequacies of the PSDAR for Connecticut Yankee As Dr. ResnikofTpcints out, due to leaky fuel rods and the use of stainless steel cladding, the Haddam Neck reactor facility h.u a long history of releasing a large amount of Tritium in to the Connecticut River. ResnikofAfdavit at 114(b). These leaks and discharges have been of concem to the public. Id Moreover, Dr. ResnikofTstates that the Haddam Neck facility has a history of
- sloppy radiological controls "resulting in excessive contamination of the site and uncontrolled releases into the environment."Id Given this kind of history, and the history detailed in CAN's and NIRS's 10 C.F.R.
2.206 Petition (November 25, 1996 and as amended), an adequate decommissioning plan for Connecticut Yankee should take these site-specific prcblems into account. ResnikofAfdavit at 114(b). In contrast, the PSDAR is a mere narrative or sketchy outline, completely lacking in detail. As Dr. Resnikoff states regarding these deficiencies:
The PSDAR consists of assertions by CYAPCo without the underlying basis.
Without this underlying information, the public cannot know if these assertions are correct, and NRC Staff cannot determine if decommissioning is proceeding f
CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Ressission and Page11 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(lonH97) safely, or whether or not the process that is being undertaken is dangercas.
Resnikoff Afdwit at 114(b). An adequate decommissioning plan for Connect. cut Yankee "should provide exposure rates at each section of the facility, and projected exposures for each decommissioning task."Id Moreover,"[e]ach step of the process should be laid out, such as isolation of the fuel pool, removal of steam generators, and reactor vessel removal."Id Plainly, the CYAPCo PSDAR is not adequate.ld at 1114,15,19.
As Dr. Resnikoff describes it, changes in the dece.,assioning mle have created a situation in which neither the NRC StafT nor the pubic can accurately ascertain exposure levels during decommissioning activities. Further, "[b]efore the present decommissioning rule, the Safety Analysis Report detailed the changes in Technical Specifications from the operating reactor to the decommissioned reactor...[which]... allowed NRC staff and the public to see whether the stafTing and training of personnel was adequate for decommissioning, and showed exactly how the plant would operate in a decommissioned state." Id at 1 14(b).
Thus, "[a]ctivities previously analyzed may become unsafe if attempted under reduced staffing conditions." Id The PSDAR required by current NRC decommissioning regulations is not adequate to assure public and occupational health and safety as required by AEA,42 U.S.C. 2133(d). Id at il 14, 15,19.
In short, not only does the operation of the decommissioning rule at Haddam Neck fail to provide the public and NRC Staffwith information about training and stafTmg, but it also creates an unsafe condition for workers and the public, in violation of AEA, 42 U.S.C. 2133(d). For example, Dr. Resnikoff mentions the previously evaluated cask drop into an irradiated fuel pool accident, which has not been reevaluated to consider the effects in a post-shutdown facility with decreased stalling and relaxed emergency preparedness. Id at 114(c). Dr. Resnikoff asks, rhetorically,"Are the stafling requirements sufficient to respond to emergencies? Will the plant have qualified nuclear power reactor engineers on duty or just security guards?" The essential problem is that although "[t]his information should be contained in the Tech Specs, [it]...cannot be found in the PSDAR, and, hence, it is not readily available to the NRC, the State of Connecticut, or the public." Thus, the current decommissioning rules violate the congressional mandate to your agency under AEA,42 U.S.C. 2133(d). Id at j 14,15,19.
These failings in the PSDAR process under the decommissioning rule are exemplified by the PSDAR filed for Connecticut Yankeet (T]he PSDAR is a mere narrative or sketchy outline, completely lacking in detail.
The PSDAR consists of assertions by CYAPCo without the underlying basis.
Without this underlying information, the public cannot know if these assertions are correct, and NRC Staff cannot determine if decommissioning is proceeding
- No doubt, the PSDAR for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station is no more sanguine, despite a few more pages. Doubtless the same inadequacies will be found in the PSDAR for the Big Rock reactor.
l CAN's and NIR 's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 18 j
Hearing en Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/w97) safely, or whether or not the process that is being undertaken is dancerous.
ResnikofAfdavit at114(b), Exhibit 3, attached hereto (emphasis added). Because the rules do not require the licensee to provide the NRC staff with sufficient documentation to evaluate the safety of the proposed decommissioning activities, the rules violates the AEA, 42 U.S.C.
2133(d).
Other Safety and Environmental Weakness in the Decommissioning Rule Process and as Exemplified by the Situation at Connecticut Yankee The process underway at Haddam Neck, the first reactor to undergo decommissioning under the current decommissioning rules, will set a dangerous precedent for other reactors.
These precedents should be evaluated under an EA or EIS supplementing the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Study on Decommissioning (GEIS] (1988). ResnikofAfidavit at 1115(a),
(b),16(a); 40 C.F.R. Q 1508.27(b)(6); see also National Audubon Society v. Hofman, 917 F.Supp. 280, (D.Vt.1995). Due to the endemic problems at the Connecticut reactor facilities, including Connecticut Yankee, which problems CAN and NIRS point.ed out to your agency in the 10 C.F.R. Q2.206, it is unsafe for workers to commence even " minor" decommissioning activities at Haddam Neck (or any other facility in a similar condition). As Dr. Resnikoff states:
Upon submitting a PSDAR, " minor decommissioning" can commence. Besides the term " minor decommissioning" being much too vague a descriptica, if reactors which are prematurely shutdown over the next. decade are similar to Haddam Neck,i.e., out of compliance with their Tech Specs and their FSAR in shambles, then allowing facilities to begin undertaking even " minor decommissioning" could be a grave mistake.
Workers may become contaminated due to excessive contamination in the facilities; tritium and other radionuclide releases and extensive " hot particle" dispersals could take place. Under decommissioning conditions, the Technical Specifications should clearly delineate the requirements for decommissioning in a " hot particle" environment, including the staffing and monitoring requirements.
Facilities like Haddam Neck will need time: to
" reinvent" their FS AR as it relates to decommissioning.
ResnilofAfdavit at 115(b). Thus, your decommissioning mies fail to adequately assure public and occupational health and safety as required by AEA,42 U.S.C. 2133(d).
Due to the lack of any meaningful approval process (i.e., the lack of dejure, rather than the existing defacto, tacit license amendment under the mandatory 90 hold and PSDAR " approval" process), specific plans noted in the PSDAR for Connecticut Yankee, such as the packing of the highly radioactive core bafile inside the reactor vessel, could become precedents for all future decommissionings. In this regard, Dr. Resnikoff states:
Under the current decommissioning rule, the licensee does not have to file a I
,e CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 19 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97) decommissioning plan for approval prior to initiating decommissioning activities.
Rather, the licensee files a PSDAR outlining proposed activities, time schedule, a few tables showing estimate of expected costs and whether the environmental impacts of proposed activities are allegedly bounded by the existing GEIS.
Following a mandatory hold of 90 days, under the current n21es, work can then proceed. This ellows the licensee to engage in activities which may have serious public health and environmental impacts, without allowing the public an opportunity to protect its interests and without the filing of a site-specific EA or EIS. For example, the licensee has indicated that it intends to ship the reactor vessel intact, without removing highly radioactive internals. The core baffle and other internals constitute what is known as greater than class C low-level waste, unfit for disposalin a nearsurface facility. A shipment of the reactor vessel with internals would be an unteviewed safety issue, viz. the adequacy of the vessel as a shipping container and the load (which would be much greater than for the Yankee Rowe reactor vessel). The Haddam Neck vessel removal and shipping is likely to be entirely experimental, resulting in a precedent which will then be applied to much larger vessel packages in future decommissionings.
ResnikofAfdavit at 115(a) (emphasis added). Thus, the current decommissioning rules fail to assure occupational and public health and safety in violation of 42 U.S.C. { 2133(d), and creates dangerous precedents which will be relied upon in subsequent decommissionings.
The NRC"Generie Environmental Impact Study on Decommissioning" (1988) Does Not Support Maior Federal Actions Permitted Under The Decommissioning Rules Although the 1988 GEIS--the NRC's only EIS on decommissioning reactor facilities-assumed, in finding limited impacts of decommissioning options, tnat decommissioning would take place under a detailed decommissioning plan (engineering and financial) submitted to the NRC for prior approval, the current decommissioning rule does away with such oversight. ResnikogAfdavit at j 15(b),(c); 16(a). In particular,
[t]he 1988 GEIS was not intended to be a " stand alone" document. The GEIS refers to the need for a " final detailed decommissioning plan." According to the 3
GEIS,"a final detailed decommissioning plan is required for review and approval by the NRC prior to cessation of facility operation or shortly thereafter. Besides the description of the decommissioning alternative which will be used, the final plan should include a description of the plans to ensure occupational and public safety and to protect the environment during decommissioning. "
ResnikofA/fidavit at 116(a), Exhibit 3, attached hereto. Since the GEIS was released in August of 1988, actual experience with decommissioning has proven its evaluation of the impact upon 5 GEIS, p. ix.
.t CAN's andh7R's Letter :o U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 20 j
Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning (10/2H97) the human environment, particularly the costs of carrying out adequate decommissioning and site clean up, to be woefully inadequate.
In point of fact, CYAPCo's " estimated DECON costs are at least twice as great as those estimated in the GEIS,i.e., the actual costs are well outside the GEIS " envelope" for acceptable decommissioning costs."Id at 115(c)(emphasis added). Yet, under the current decommissioning rules, there is no opportunity provided to make a timely challenge to the adequacy of current decommissioning estimates, or the enormous divergence from the 1988 GEIS decommissioni.3 cost projections.
This lack of accuracy in the GEIS financial projections for total decommissioning costs is all the more timely when the major owners of Connecticut Yankee face serious threats to their ability to maintain the financial stability and wherewithal to accomplish the decommissioning and site clean-up. This failing is piggy-backed upon serious questions about your agency's ability to carry out its mission to assure pubic and occupational health and safety of nuclear power facilities. Compare Statements of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut Attorney General characterized Connecticut Yankee reactor site as "an undocumented, unanalyzed nuclear waste dump" also advocated reducing or eliminating payments to owner-operators due to incompetent management practices at reactors), Exhibit Dl, D-2, D-3, D-4, attached hereto; Stephanie Johnson,"Dodd calls for broader nuke probe-Senator says CY Haddam fiasco points to bigger problems," THE hilDDLETOWN press at 1,6 (September 19,1997) (requesting Senate hearings on Northeast Utilities's mismanagement and NRC's neglipnt oversight of Connecticut nuclear power reactors, Senator Dodd agrees ratepayers should not have to cover costs connected with shutdowns of hiillstone and Connecticut Yankee reactors), Exhibit C-7, attached hereto, with Mike McIntire, "NU Acts To Ease Banks' Fears,"
THE HARTTORD COURANT at Dl, D5 (October 2,1997) (following downgrading of Nonheast Utilities' credit rating, group of banks led by Citicorp forced $200 million short term credit guarantee to protect banks from possibility of NU subsidiary Connecticut Light and Power bankruptcy), Exhibit C-10, attached hereto; Stephanie Johnson, "Haddam upset by plummeting real estate values-Connecticut Yankee contamination alerts property owners," THE hilDDLETOWN PRESS at Al, A6 (Sep, ember 24,1997)(people trying to sells homes in Haddam having difficulty due to disclosures about contamination at Connecticut Yankee; Connecticut U.S. Senator Joseph Liel.erman joined Senator Dodd in requesting Senate hearings on problems at Connecticut reactors), Exhibit C-8, attached hereto; Stephanie Johnson, " Health studies show mixed results," hilDDLETGWN PRESS at A-1 (September 18,1997)(studies showed mixed results, but higher levels of some forms of cancer among residents of the towns surrounding the Connecticut Yankee nuclear reactor site), Exhibit C-9, attached hereto; hiike McIntire and Dan Haar," Nuclear plant cleanup cost: $100 million?"THE HARTFORD COURANT at A1, A12 (July 3, 1997)(grounds of Connecticut Yankee may be very contaminated -- internal Northeast Utilities memos show radiation safety specialists estimated 212,000 cubic feet of pavement and soil may require removal with an estimated cleanup cost at more than $100 million), Exhibit C-5, attached hereto; Stephanie Johnson,"CY says site is tainted--Residents concerned about effects," THE hilDDLETOWN press at A 1 (July 1,1997), Exhibit C-4, attached hereto.
l
j CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 21 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/w97)
. IV.
,CAN'S. AND NIRS'S CONTENTIONS CONCERNING THE INADEQUACY, ILLEGALITY, AND IRRATIONALITY OF THE DECOMMISSIONING RULES, AND, PARTICULARLY, AS APPLIED TO THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE DECOMMISSIONING CAN and NIRS incorporate herein the facts as alleged above and further set forth:
A.
Current NRC Decommissioning Rules Violate The National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]
The purposes for your proposed rule change had nothing at all to do with your congressional charge to assure public and occupational health and safety when nuclear radiation is produced. 42 U.S.C. 6 2133(d). Rather, "the fmal amendments clarify ambiguities in the current. rule and codify procedures that reduce the regulatory burden, provide greater flexibility, and allow for greater public participation in the decommissioning process." Final Rule,61 Fed. Reg. 39278. In fact, your decommissioning regulations eliminate any significant regulatory requirements, license amendments, and meaningful public hearings opportunity until major decommissioning has taken place. See generally id; see also Affidavit of Dr. Marvin Resnikoff at 1115,16,17,18, Exhibit 3, attached hereto. At the same time, the only participation allowed the public are " venting" sessions. The public is permitted to listen, comment, and place material on the record without any power to affect the decisionmaking process until all the major decommissioning activity has taken place, and then only if fuel is still on site. Id at 39284-39286. This is not meaningful participation in the decisionmaking process. See generally, CAN v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir.
1995)(Court expresses opprobrium at NRC attempt to maintain that public meetings are the same as " hearings"). Moreover, the application of the decommissioning rules leave any agency and public consideration of site-specific environmental issues until after the agency has allowed a major federal action to go forward. This is a pttent violation of the National Environmental Policy Act,42 U.S.C. 4332. It has already been held to be illegal. CAN v, NRC, 59 F.3d at 292-293.
The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations implementing NEPA, 40 CFR Part 1500, are binding on all federal agencies, and substantial deference is given to CEQ's interpretations of NEPA. Andrus v. Sierra Club,443 U.S. 347, 357-58 (1979). "There [s ' Federal Action' within the meaning of the statute [ NEPAL not only when an agency proposes to build a facility itself, but also whenever an acency makes a decision which permits action by other parties which will afrect the quality af the environment." Scientists' Institute For Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission,481 F.2d 1079 (D.C.Cir.1973) (emphasis added). The CEO reculations define "maior federal actions" as including those non-federal actions "with effects that may g major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility,: 40 C.F.R.
1508.18 (emphasis added). This precisely describes your agency's relationship to the licensee's proposed decommissioning plan for the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
,t CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 22 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/24/97)
The decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee, which, as recognized in your Generic Environmental Impact Study and your regulations,is an activity subject to your agency's control and responsibility, plainly qualifies as a" major federal action" under NEPA. Id Moreover, the decommissioning activities proposed for Connecticut Yankee are essentially the same as those conducted as the " Component Removal Project [CRP]" at Yankm Rowe. Afhdavit of Dr.
Marvin Resnikoff at 1113,15(b),19, Exhibit 3, attached hereto. What your agency referred to as the CRP at Yankee Rowe was major decommissioning activity utilizing the immediate decontamination and disassembly (DECON) decommissioning option. Id The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the CRP is a major federal action requiring production of a site-specific EA or EIS prior to commencement of decommissioning activities.
CANv. NRC.,59 F.3d at 292-93. Therefore, under NEPA, the proposed decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station requires your agency to prepare a site-specific EA and/or EIS prior to the commencement of major decommissioning activities.
Your response to CAN's r.nd NIRS's rulemaking comments questioning NEPA compliance under the new decommissioning rules was to state that "the F[inal]G[eneric]EIS (NUREG-0586) for the 1988 decommissioning rule...did not address site-specific situations that could differ from the assumptions used in the FGEIS analysis." Final Rule on Decommirsioning, 61 Fed. Reg. at 39283. Although you state that you do not expect any site impacts to be major, and t' any site impa t should be" bounded" previous applicable GEISs as well as any site-specific Ed, you do not require your agency to prepare a site-rpecific environmental assessment for any particular decommissioning proposal. Id Rather, your mle impermissibly shifts the responsibility to the licensee "[t]o account for site-specific situations that may occur outside these environmental impact considerations" by " prohibit [ing] major decommissioning activities that could result in significant environmental impacts not previously reviewed" and stating that "[t]he review process for the PSDAR and the approval process for the license termination plan requires licensees to review the existing documents and address any discrepancies in their submittals." Id Thus, if the licensee, rather than your agency (as required by NEPA, 42 U.S.C. { 4'32), fails to make adequate consideration in its own non-pubic process of consideration of environmental impacts, your agency will only begin to address such discrepancies at the license termination stage, after all of the major decommissioning activities have already taken place. This completely violates the lettei and spirit of the National Environmental Policy Act,42 U.S.C.
4332.
It is well-settled law that a responsible federal agency's environmental consideration of a project should take place at the planning stage, not after the agency has permitted the commitment of resources to a major federal action. Sierra Club v. Morton, 348 F.Supp. 219 (D. Cal.1972);
Environtrental Law Fdn. v. Volpe, 340 F.Supp.1328 (D. Cal.1972). Of all federal agencies, 3
yours should now be keenly aware that skirting NEPA obligations is illegal. See, e.g., CAN v.
NRC, 59 F.3d 284,294 95 (1st Cir.1995); Limerick Ecology Action v. U.S. Nuc. Reg. Com 'n, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir.1989); Andrus v. Sierra Club,443 U.S. 347,357-58 (1979) (Council on Environmental Quality's regulations implementing NEPA,40 CFR Part 1500, are binding on all fedeal agencies), Scientists' Institute For PublicInformation, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission, l
_ - = - _ -
CAN's andNIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 23 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/2,t/97) 481 F.2d 1079 (D.C.Cir.1973) ("There is ' Federal Action' within the meaning of the statute
[ NEPAL not only when an agency proposes to build a facility itself, but also whenever an agency makes a decision which permits action by other parties which will affect the quality o_f the environme.nt."). Calvert Chfs Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir.1971); I aak Walton League v. Schlessinger, 337 F.Supp. 287 (D.D.C.1971).
Funher,it is your agency, not some other or some interested third party, which must make its own threshold determination as to whether a site specific EA and/or EIS is necessary, Hanly v.
Mitchell,460 F.2d 640 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 409 U.S. 990 (1972); New York v. United States, 344 F.Supp. 929 (D.N.Y.1972); see also Northside Tenants' Rights Coalition v. Volpe, 346 F.Supp.
244 (D.Wis.1972) (federal agency responsible for project may not delegate NEPA mandated decisionmaking to state, nor may it rely upon state's view concerning balancing of environmental issues in project approval process); Green County Planning Board v. Federal Power Commission *,455 F.2d 412 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 409 U.S. 849 (1972); Committee to Stop Route 7
- v. Volpe, 346 F.Supp. 731 (D. Conn.1972); Goose Hollow Foothills League v. Romney, 334 F.Supp. 877 (D. Ore.1971)(only responsible federal agency in position to fulfill obligation to conduct environmental study--it is an error to rely upon an environmental assessment provided by a project promoter).
l A federal agency may not delegate away its responsibility to engage in independent review of l
federal actions proposed by non-federal entities. I-291 Why? Association v. Burns, 517 F.2d 1077 at 1081 (2d Cir.1975). Your agency is responsible for ovedght of the decommissioning of Connecticut and all other decommissionings of nuclear power reactors which will take place.
Your agency may not pass off its statutory duties by simply approving environmental statements prepared by others. Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43, 59 (5th Cir.) (citing Green l
County Planning Bd. v. F.EP.,455 F.2d 412 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 409 U.S. 849 (1972), Life of the Land v. Brinegar 485 F.2d 460,467 (9th Cir.1973), cert. den., 416 U.S. 961 (1974)), rehearing denied, 504 F.2d 760 (5th Cir.), and cert. den. 421 U.S. 994, and cert. den. 422 U.S.1049, rehearingdenied,423 U.S. 884 (1975).
An agency like yours must perform its own environmental review independently, employing its own judgment and analytical skills, and it must significantly and actively panicipate in the process of drafling an environmental assessm' nt. Id. Whether a project is initiated by a state or a e
private pany, the federal agency responsible for oversight and/or permitting must perform the necessary envirc,nmental reviews, and cannot abdicate responsibility to fully and independently evaluate the human and natural environmental impacts of projects proposed by non-federal entities regulated by the responsible federal agency, Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Callaway,524 F.2d 79 at 86 (2d Cir. I975) (citing Conservation Southern Vermont, Inc. v. Sec.
ofTransportation,508 F.2d 927,931-33 (2d Cir.1974));I-291 Why? Association v. Burns,517 F.2d 1377 at 1081 (2d Cir.1975); Green County Planning Bd. v. Federal Power Commission, 455 F.2d 412,419-20 (2d Cir.), cert. den. 409 U.S. 849 (1972).
,o CAN's andMR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescissicn and Page 24 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97)
Your decommissioning rule violates NEPA in three ways: (1) institutionalizing post-hoc consideration of the environmental impacts of proposed major federal actions, (2) placing the responsibility for considering environmental impacts on the licensee, and (3) placing the key environmental decisionmaking upon the licensee in a non public decision making process. This new process undercuts the 1988 GEIS's recommendation that your agency conduct a site-specific EA and/or EIS. GEIS at 152-53; see also AfTidavit of Dr. hfarvin Resnikoff,11 13, 15(b),19, Exhibit 3, attached hereto (a site-specific EA and/or EIS is necessary prior to commencement of major decommissioning activities that are essentially the same as those under the Yankee Rowe CRP); CAN v. NRC, 59 F.3d at 293 (allowing YAEC to commence and complete 90% of the decommissioning at Yankee Nuclear Power Station prior to agency's compliance with NEPA lacked any rational basis, and was thus arbitrary and capricious).
The GEIS on decommissioning states that, "[u]ntil the (decommissioning plan] environmental review is done,it cannot be presumed that the impacts will be within the scope of those impacts evaluated by the GEIS." GEIS at 152-53. Without a site-specific evaluation "the [NEPA) process becomes a useless ritual, defeating the purpose of NEPA, and rather mrking a mockery afit." NaturalResources Defense Council v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 539 F. 824,845 (2d Cir.1976).
The situation of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station at Haddam Neck presents a textbook example of the deficiencies in your decommissioning rule, as well as the illegalities, and the reasons why NEPA requires a federal agency to engage public environmental consideration of a project before committing resources to it. For years, the licensee operated the Haddam Neck reactor facility in a shoddy manner, the shoddiness of which was equaled by that of your inspectors. These matters were detailed in CAN's and NIR's 2.206 petition which has been incorporated herein by reference. hforeover, during operatipas, Connecticut Yankee dumped an enormous quantity of radic.: tive waste in a discharge canal emptying into the Connecticut River.
Aflidavit of Rosemary Bassilakis at jj 10,11, Exhibit 6, attached hereto. The area affected by this dumping is a conservation area at the mouth of the Salmon River. Affidavit of Dr. hfarvin Resnikoff at 114(b), Exhibit 3, attached hereto. Dr. Resnikoff quotes an article to the effen tut
- The Salmon River contains a very large tidal marsh and is home to a number of state-listed rare species.
Wild rice growing in the marsh supports a large waterfowl population. Salmon swim up the river and over a ladder at the Leesville Dam every year to spawn. American Bald Eagles nest in Salmon Cove from December through hfarch while many young birds spend the entire year within two miles of Connecticut Yankee.'
M at 16(c). He then goes on to observe that
' Guthrie, M., "Saving CY's Land," THE HERAI.D PRESS (January 19, 1997), Exhibit C-1, attached hereto.
- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,e CAN's andNIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 25
' Hearing on Haddam N.tek Decommissioning.(10/24/97)
Long term impacts of tritium on local rare species and spawning salmon, amounts of tritium in the fishes' tissue, amounts of liquid waste to be discharged during decommissioning, or whether there are alternatives to such discharges, need to be investigated prior to CYAPCo being allowed to start decommissioning the Haddam Neck facility. Without a detailed decommissioning plan there is no way to assure CYAPCo's compliance with the GEIS.
Id We believe that your agency has completely failed to take account of the cumulative environmental efTects of some 10 years of dumping radioactive waste upon the Haddam Neck area. In particular, your agency has not made any efforts to measure or take account of such cumulative effects in making site-specific comparisons about the emironmental impacts of DECON and SAFSTOR or other decommissioning alternatives. This is necessary to comply with even the most minimal view ofNEPA requirements under 42 U.S.C. 4332. There should be at least some study which would justify allowing the licensee at Haddam Neck to utilize a decommissioning option which will result in dumping more radioactive waste into this particular ecosystem. The purpose of such studies "is the discussion of steps that can be taken to mitigate adverse environmental consequences" of a proposed action, such as major decommissioning activity. Robertson v. Methaw Valley Citi: ens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 351 (1989); see also
. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (NEPA mandates that NRC teke a "hard look" at the environmental consequences before permitting major action to take place) (cfuoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n.21 (1976)); Dubois v. U.S. Dept. ofAgriculture,102 F.3d 1273,1287,1289 (1st Cir.1996) (failure to discuss alte natives to proposed action in final EIS fatal; agency has discretion to balance competing concerns and choose among alternatives, but before making a decision it must l
legitimately access relative merits of reasonable alternatives).
l The suggestion in your rulemaking that situations such as exist at Haddam Neck are " bounded" by your 1988 generic findings is patently incorrect. First, generic environmental decisionmaking may only be relied upon where the "actualissues do not involve particularized situations, but involve issues common to all nuclear facilities." Limerick Ecology Action v. U.S. Nuc. Reg.
Com 'n, 869 F.2d 719, 738 n.22, 740-41 (3 d Cir.1989); Minnesota v. NRC, 602 F.2d 412, 416-17 (D.C.Cir.1979). Second,it is improper to rely upon an old, non-site specific EA and/or EIS.
Sierra Club v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 862 F.2d 222, 229-30 (9th Cir.1988).
l Moreover, in this particular case, there is a hi; tory of serious problems affecting the local environment (as well as raising serious concerns about occupational and public health and safety), including, but not limited to: (1) leaky fuel rods producing " hot particles" which cause contamination, (2) offsite releases, (3) shoddy management and operations, (4) shoddy L
inspections,(5) long-term lack of compliance with safety system requirements, (6) a succession of operator'.iishaps and contaminations even after the reactor was in a shutdown condition, (7) l reports be., inning to surface of cancer clusters in the communities surrounding the reactor site, (8) local discontent over falling property values following the disclosure of possible large-scale site l
contamination, and (9) actions underway by the Governor, Attorney General, and the Department of Public Utilities Control due to dissatisfaction with the decommissioning cost i
l
CAN's and NIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 26 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97) projections and extent of site clean-up which will be needed.
Thus, a site-specific environmental assessment and supplemental EIS are very much needed to address a continuing flood of site-specific problems which were not addressed in the generic EIS or any eadier EA or EIS for Connecticut Yankee. Moreover, as stated above, there is no current EA or EIS dealing with the effects of the choice of decommissioning options upon continued pollution of the wildlife areajust downstream from the reactor at the mouth of the Salmon River.
Nor is there any EA and/or EIS dealing with the same issues related to human health, or any examination of the impacts of contaminated wildlife in the area around Connecticut Yankee upon human health.
CAN and NIRS view of CAN's public health concerns at Rowe, Massachusetts, as confirmed by the recent Mass Department of Public Health " consultation." When this study is coupled with the results of recent studies showing elevated levels of many of the same kinds of cancer in the vicinity of Connecticut Yankee, CAN and NIRS members living near the reactor have good reason to be concemed. Your agency should conduct a health study and EA and/or EIS before allowing any decommissioning activity at Connecticut Yankee, particularly activities which would result in the release of any ionizing radiation or radioactive effluents into the local community, Compare Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Health Consultation,
" Cancer Incidence and Down Syndrome Prevalence in the Deerfield River Valley,"
Massachusetts (February 1997), with Stephanie Johnson, '? Health studies show mixed results,"
MIDDI.ETowN press at A-1, A-7 (September 18,199) / National Cancer institute study in 1990 found eleEted risk of death to residents in towns.; and Connecticut Yankee reactor from numerous cancers, including colorectal cancer, other lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, trachea, bronchus and lung cancer, and an elevated incidence risk for liver, lung, bladder, trachea, bronchus and lung cancer for certain age groups), Exhibit C-16, attached hereto.
Your agency could relieve the legitimate concems of CAN and NIRS members over occupational and public health and safety issues, as well as actually taldng the proper steps to assure the I
same, by ordering a health study and an EIS prior to allowing any decommissioning activity to take place at Connecticut Yankee. Your ag:ncy is obligated to take a hard look at the human and natural environmental impacts of proposed actions, including cumulative impacts, before allowing a commitment of resources to a major federal action, such as decommissioning. NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Q 4332; CAN v. NRC, 58 F.3d at 294-295 (Coun held even part of the DECON process to be major federal action requiring EA and/or EIS). Conducting the requisite health study to supplement a site specific EA and/or EIS on the proposed decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee would provide afrected CAN and NIRS members with an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, and to obtain relief of their legitimate concems about l
how the proposed project will atTect the environment in which they live. Moreover, such relief is consistent with your agency's mandate to assure occupational and public health and safety in the utilization of radioactive materials. 42 U.S.C. Q 2133(d).
I 1
.,v CAN's and NIR 's Letter to U.S. NRC. Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 27 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97)
B.
Current Decommissioning Rules Institutionalize Continued Violations of the AEA,42 U.S.C. (( 2133(d),(c), and 2339, and APA,5 U.S.C. g 706.
CAN and NIRS contend that the current decommissioning rule violates the Atomic Energy Act's hearing requirements in two ways.
1.
The current decommissioning rules accomplish a de facto permitting of-decommissioning without provision of the requisite public licence amendment proceeding required under the AEA,42 U.S.C. 2239, and vio! ate of the APA,-5 U.S.C.
- g 706.
For 8 years, your agency ran decommissionings under the principle that a nuclear reactor licensee had to obtain a possession only license and submit a detailed decommissioning plan which required a licente amendment approval process prior to commencement of any major decommissioning activities. The rationale, and limitations based upon that rationale, were plainly stated in the statement of consideration for the extensive decommissioning rulemaking proceeding conducted prior to enactment of the original decommissioning rules in 1988. Therein you stated, in pertinent part, that:
[tlhe primary means of protecting the health and safety of the public and workers during the decommissioning is through the implementation of the l
decommissioning plan.
Although the Commission must approve the decommissioning alternative and major structural changes to radioactive components of the facility or other major changcs, the licensee may proceed with some activities such as decontamination, minor component disassembly, and shipment and storage of spent fuel if these activities are permitted by the operatinglicense and/or Q 50.59.
t l
Final Rule: General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, 53 Fed. Reg. 24018, 24025 24026 (June 27,1988)(emphasis added). These requirements were eliminated from your current decommissioning mies, substituting the licensee's disclosure of some information (which l
is no longer subject to an adjudicatory public process and factual cross-examination). Your rule describes this situation, in pertinent part:
Once a licensee permanently ceases operation of the power reactor, no maior de, ommissioning activities.(as defined in the proposed rule) Imavl...be undertaken c
until the public and the NRC [are). provided information by the licensee.
Information required from the licensee in a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) consist [sl of the licensee's proposed decommissioning activities and schedule throuch license termination, an assessment of whether such proposed activities are bounded by existing analyses of environmental impacts, and a general deccmmissioning cost estimate for the
,.,s.
CAN's and NIR's Lctnr to U.S NRC, Requesto,g Rule Descission and page 28 Herring on })addxa Neck De commissioning.(10/w97) proposed activities. The PSDAR [will) be made available to the public for comment.
Ninety days after the PSDAR submittal to the NRC and approximately 3,0 days ager a public information meeting Ls held in the vicinity of the reactor site.
the licensee could p,erfprm m::ior decommissioning activities if NRC does not offer an objection.
Final Decommissinning Rule,61 Fed. Reg. at 39.279 (emphasis added to show terms of defacto private license amendment proceeding).
What this rule change accomplishes is a defacto license amendment proceeding for each reactor without the dejure public license amendment proceeding which includes an opportunity for a Laring as required under the AEA i 189(a),42 U.S.C. 2239. This is precisely the kind of backdoor license amendment which the United States Court of Appeals held impermissible. CAN
[
- v. NRC,59 F.3d et 292. In that case, your agency told the Court that you "did not actively permit Y[ ankle) A[tomic] E[lectric) C[omi.any) to initiate CRP activities; rather, [you) ' simply reviewed YAEC's implementation of the CRP, as part of[your] everyday oversight of [your) licensee's activities, and found no reascn to interfere with YAEC's plans." Id.
You then argue, in the NEPA context, that because mere " regulatory oversight, as opposed to active permission, does not implicate NEPA," no EA cr EIS is required prior to commencement of major i
decommission lng activities. Id. That is the same argument the CAN v. NRC Court found to be
" completely devoid of merit." M In the context your agency's attempt to avoid requiring a license amendment, the Court explicitly stated:
The Commission elevates labels over substance. It would have uj detegnine that a" proceeding" specifically aimed aj excusing a licensee from filine a petition to amend its license is not the fimetional equivalent of a pIoceeding to allow a de Acto " amendment" to itn licenie. As this construct would eviscerate the very procedural protections Congress envisioned in its enactment of section 189(a), we decline to permit the Commission to do by indirection what it is prohibited from doing directly.
CAN v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284, 295 (citations omitted).
Yet, here we are with the "new" decommissioning rule attempting the same ploy with slightly altered rhetoric and a mlemaking.
There you go again! It was primarily the deface license amendment without a f 189(a) hearing, rather than the mere lack of a rulemaking, which made your agency's actions illegal under CAN v.
NRC. M As the Court quite explicitly stated, in pertinent part, "We reject the Commission's claim that its abrupt policy change in 1993, to the extent it substantially enlarged the authority of an criant licensee (YAEC) retroactively, nonetheless did not entitle CAN to the requested section 189(a) hearing." Id. at 294 (emphasis in original). Moreover, each license which the C.smmission may issue pursuant to the AEA. "shall be issued for a specified period, as determined by the Commission, depending on the w pe of activity to be licensed, " 42 U.S.C. 2133(c)(emphasis added). The license for Connecticut Yankee, as with all of the other reactor facilities affected by
CAN's c.nlNIR's Letter to US. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Hearing on HadJam Neck Decommissioning.(10tw97)
Page 29 i
your. ules change,is an operating license, not a license ta conduct decommissioning act was issued with a specific time period in mind (through 2007) based upon the li in a specific type of activity: reactor operation.
s There is no provision is under the AEA to permit your agency to retroactively expandlicense authority. In the absence of su provision of authority, your agency does not possess such authority. Bowen v. Ge UniversityRospital,488 U.S. 204,208-209 (1988). Such arr,endments require t provide hearing upon request to interested persons. AEA,42 U.S.C. { 2239.
Further, as your agency is well, aware for numerous procedural and substantive reaso embracing the entire extent of your rules and regulations, the " post shutdown" or "decommissioning" stage of a reactor" life"is distinct from the " operating" stage. As pur Dr. Michael Masnick, Section Chief of the Den amissic,ning Section, stated at a p Decommissionin_g is the last nhase in the life of r, nuclear facility and !!s purpose is to remove the facility sefely from service, and reduce the residual radioactivity of the facility, and the site, to a level that permits the release of the site, and termination of the NRC license. Nor, this dermition is important as to what is says and what it does not say. The focu of the NRC is limited solely, to the removal of the radiological hazards resulting from operation of the facility.
U.S. NRC, Transcript of Public Hearing [ sic), Higganutn, Connecticut at 52 (January 15, 1997)
(emphasis added).' This description contradicts the one in your rulemaking proceeding, you claim that the activities of'.he decommissioning stage are like those during operation o reactor. See, e.g., Final Decommissioning Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. at 39280, It is plain from Dr.
Masnick's description that the activities conducted post shutdown are in the "last phase life of a nuclear facility" as distinguished, by the very words he is using, from activities conducting during earlier phases, such as construction and operation. The " focus" agency's activities is " solely" on removal of hazards "resulting from operatic of the fa How can activities plainly distinct from routine operations take place under the grant authority of an operating license? Common sense dictates that they cannot. A licensee de to "remov[ing] the facility safely from service, and reduc [ing) the residual radioactivity o facility, and the site, to a level that permits the release of the site, and termination of the NR license" is not actually engaging in operating,'icense activity. Operators want to kee facilities operating so make money generating electrichy. Post operators want to get o business as fast as they can and qubkly pass off the liability for the massive amou radioactive waste they generated while making money selling electricity.
It is gratuitous, at best, to claim that because operating facilities need to remove an
' in this regard, the Commission should be aware that the licensee does not characte involved in decommissioning as a continuation of routine operations.
Executive Vice President for Northeast Utilities and ChiefiGelear Office for Connecticut said," Decommissioning in b_is deal It is a maior effort.. " U.S. NRC, Transcript of Pu i
[ sic),liigganum, Connecticut at 10 (Janeary 15,1997) (emphasis added).
_,,.,g..-
, - - - - - - ~ - - * *
=-
C4N's vndNIR's Letter to US NRC, Requesting Rule Rescisston and page 30 Hearmg on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/wp1) broken equipment, they are conducting the same activities as post operators engsged in dismantling a highly contaminated post-operational nuclear reactor facility.
The operaung licensee has a different purpose when, say, removing a steam generator for replacement, or removing some contaminated piece of equipment for repair. For one thing, an operatnr would not want to muck about with massive chemical or pressurized water decontamination of a facility when conducting such replacements or repairs not unless it was absolutely recessary. One does not need to be an expert to understand that the basis of the operator's license describes, to a very great extent, the nature and kind of activitics the licensee will want (and need) to engage in to operate the facility. This means getting the equipment replaced or repaired in the fastest and cheapest way possible that does not violate NRC regulations, and permits the licensee to get back "on line." This also means that unless (and only to the extent) it is absolutely necessary, operating licensees will not remove accumulated radioactive contamination when doing a replacement or repairjob.' Decontarnination is costly, time-consuming, and exposes workers to cumulative radiation doses which the operator licensee needs to save for routine operations and maintenance. Such activities will be left to the "last phase" of a reactor's life-the post operating, dismantling, clean up the radioactive contamination phase.
When the licensee is in the post operational phase, the activities are supposed to be geared toward decontamination (to the extent possible) of the entire facility. At the same tirne, the licensee gives up the right to refuel the facility, and will request and receive permission to make numerous amendments to the license and technical specifications-none of which provide the opportunity for a hearing on the decommissioning plan per se. See, e.g., Feigenbaum, T.C.,
" Application for amendments to license DPR-61, reflecting staff limitations and requirements appropriate to present configuration" (May 5,1997); Feigenbaum, T.C., " Application for arnendments to license DpR-61, reflecting limitations and requirements appropriate to present configuration of plant"(May 30,1997)(numerous r; quests to make massive emendations to the license and technical specification to conform to 'i.e non-operational status of the facility).
Additionally, your notices to licensees and the licensee's requests for exemptions and license amendments directly acknowledge that there are significant difTerences between operational and post operational licensee needs, activities, and conditions.
In your notices to licensees, distinctions are made between " operating" and " post shutdown" status of the license. See, e.g.
T. T. Martin, " Suppl. I to GL 95-06 to all holders of OLs (except those licensecs of permanently shutdown reactors who no longer required to utilize licensed reactor operators) for nuclear er reactors re changes in operator licensing program"(January 31,1997).
Thus, the climination of the distinction between " operating" and " post-operating" license is
' in relation to this question, we hereby incorporate by reference CAN's cxpert affidavits and filings in the matter of Yankee Atomic Electric Company (decommissioning plan) placed before the Commission during litigation and appeals, 1995 1996, in the instant matter, we refer to descriptions contained therein of major decommissioning activities and related or preparatory activities, and their radiological and other health impacts upon workers and the public.
CAN's andN1R's Le:rer to U.S NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Heanng en Haddam Neck Decommissioning,poiw97)
Page 31 strained, artificial, arbitrary, capricious, and fails to delineate If.e actual level of rights an responsibilities Branted to a licensee during the post operational stage of the " reactor's life." T elimination of this distinction is facially irrational, leads to irrational results, and is a capricious, and an abuse of discretion in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S Q 706(2)(A).
You have stated that:
A malq chance from the current rule is that powy reactor licensees would no longer be teguired to have it approved decommissioning plan before being permitted t,o perform maior derommissioning activities. Under the proposed rule, licensees would be allowed to perform activities that meet the criteria proposed in Sec. 50.59. Section 50.59 would be amended to include additional criteria to e that concerns specific to decommissioning are considered by the licensee. Based on NRC experience with licensee decommissioning activities, the Commission recognir.ed that the Sec. 50.59 process used by the licensee during reactor operations encompassed routine activities that are similcr to those undertaken during the decommissioning process. The < ommissinn concluded that the Sec.
50.59 process could be used by the licensee to perform major decommissioning activities iflicensing conditions and the level of NRC oversight required during reactor operations are continued, commensurate with the status of the facility being decommissioned.
Final Rule,61 Fed. Reg. at 39280 (emphasis added). Incorporating herein the argument above conceming the non-routine nature of decommissioning operations, it should also be noted that CYAPCo had to bring in specially trained personnel from Yankee Atomic Electric Compan oversee decommissioning precisely because such activity is very difTerent from what is done under routine operation. However, in terms of your agency's experience with DECON-typ decommissioning as proposed for Connecticut Yankee, in your rulemaking the experien refer to having acquired between the August 1988 issuance of the Final Rule on Decom Nuclear Reactors and the promulgation of the Decommissioning Rule on July 20,1995, is rather limited.
It is, in fact, confmed to seven reactor facilities, nearly all of which were placed in a safe-storage (SAFSTOR) condition, or we,e radically different from most other operating reactors, or had extremely truncated operating lives: (1) Fort St. Vrain (a different unique typ reactor difTerent from all others underyour authonty); (2) Shoreham (which only operated for a number of hours); (3) Rancho Seco (SAFSTOR); (4) Yankee Rowe (still in the process of DECON);(5) Three Mile Island Unit 2 (SAFSTOR); (6) San Onofre Unit 1, (SAFSTOR); and (7) Trojan, (in the p rocess of DECON).
Thus, the sum total of your experience following to the issuance 1988 decommissioning rule in anything other than loag-term safe storage (SAFSTOR) encompasses only two completed decommissionings. Of these, one was a different type of reactor from any other, and the other operated for only a number of hours.. Of the two c.ther facilities using DECON, one resulted in a
. ~ _ _
CAN's andh7R's Letter to U.S NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/w97)
Page 32 successful petition to the United States Court of Appeals, based in part on violations of NEPA for failure to conduct an EA or EIS prior to commencing DECON activities, and in part o illegality of engaging in a defacto license amendment proceeding without requiring in a license amendment. CAN v. NRC,59 F.3d 284,292-93,295 (1st Cir.1995).
In addition to this lack of extensive experience in any k]nd of decommissining other than SAFSTOR, of great concern is the complete lack of application of any scientik or technical analysis to arrive at the conclusion that it is reasonable to do away with a detailed decommissioning plan and allow licensee "self regulation" of the major decommissioni under 10 CFR 50.59. There were no new documents or studies to justify the major pol change referred to in the rules. Rather, your primaryjustifications to the proposed rules wer
" regulatory flexibility" (i.e., letting the licensees regulate themselves). Moreover, the ch quite at odds with your agency's position in the statement of consideration for the major rulemaking on decommissioning wherein you stated:
The primary means of protecting the health and safety of the public and workers during the decommissioning is throuch the implementation of the decommissioning plan.
Although the Commission mtrst approve the decommissioning alternative and major structural changes to radioactive components of the facility or other major changes, the licensee may proceed with some activities such as decontamination, minor compenent disassembly, and shipment and storage of spent fuel if these activities are permitted by the operating license and/or Q 50.59.
Final Rule: General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, 53 Fed. Reg.
24025-24026 (June 27,1988)(emphasis added). Your agency has failed to adequately ex how, without any further studies, you are able to assure public and occupational health and safety during decommissioning when you have eliminated the mechanism which the 1988 GEIS and rulemaking on decommissioning rely upon to accomplish that end. Thus, there is go reason to believe that your rule change was based upon the " post-Shoreham" advice of leg i
counsel rather than any technical or scientific studies conducted by your staff.
In any event, the bottom line is that your decommissioning miemaking failed to justify th change in your policies and rules This failure violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Q706. Previously, your rule. took a common sense approach by mandating prim reliance upon the implementation of the d: commissioning plan, coupled with strict limitation and controls upon licensee activities and a pre. major decommissioning activities approval proce which allowed interested persons the right to request a hearing. Your current rules repla entire process with the " review" of a Post Shut Down Activities Report that is nothing mo than a thin outline of the licensee's intentions. You substitute complete reliance upon licensee I
l l
CAN's and NIR's Let:er to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Resct?ston and i
Hearing on HadJam Neck Decommissioning,(!0/w97) page 33 self-regulation under 10 CFR 50.59 for real oversight of the decommissioning process. This is completely irrational, arbitrary, capricio.s, a.,d an abuse of the discretion granted under the AEA,42 U.S.C. 62133(d), as it endangers occupational and public health and safety.
What expedence could possiblyjustify the magnitude of the shift you have made away from the statement that "[t]he primary means of proiecting the health and safety of the public and workers dudng the decommissioning is dirough the implementation of the decommission!ng plan"? This is the same kind of shsrp shift in rules, policy and interpretation of requisite procedures in the underlying statute f tiat your tried to put into effect on January 14,1993. See generally, CAN v. NRC,59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir.1995). We contend that you erred in failing to consider the full implFations of the proposed rule change in the light of the Court's decision, which fa!1ure you tried to cover with the addition of a remark in the publication of the final rule.
Final Rule on Decommissioning,61 Fed. Reg. at 39285 39286. All of the absurd results which flow from your agency's attempt to institutionalize the Yankee Rowe expedence stem from a failure to adequately respond to the First Circuit's decision before promulgating new decommissioning rule. The ultimate result of this failureis the current situation under which the rules permit the licensee or prematurely shutdown facility-l.e., one which is in some kind of a
senous, unexpected operational or financial difliculty-to have carte blanche to DECON the reactor facility and get out quickly, before getting stuck with long-term liability for a radioactively contaminated waste site. This result, as United States Senators and the Attorney General from Connecticut have told you, is was a well considered one Exhibits C-7, C-8, C-18,C-19, D 1, attached hereto.
- 2. The current decommissioning rules, through a de facto permitting of decommissioning without the requisite public license amendment proceeding, violate the AEA,42 U.S.C. (( 2133(c),(d),2239, and the APA,5 U.S.C. g 706.
CAN and NIRS contend that under Q 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2239, Congress intended that your agency would require license amendments when there are significant '
thanges to the operational status of nucler.r power facilities. Rather than being a matter entirel left to your agency's discretion, f 189(a) discusses a number of conditions under which Congr plainly anticipated that your agency would be requiring 1. cense amendments. These changes in the status of nuclear reactor facilities licenses which Congress plainly included in the statute are:
constmetion permits, operating licenses, suspensions and revocations of the license, and modification of the license.
We be ieve that no feat of exegesis is necessary to understand that Congress intended to recognized the differences between permission to operate the facility under regulation (an
" operating" license) and permission to decontaminate and disassemble or safe store (a post-
. operational license), and reasonably anticipated that your agency would be amending licenses to reflect such substantially changed conditions. See In Re Three Mile Island Alc.-t, Inc., 771 F.2d y
..m i
e
CAN's and NIR 's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 34 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning (lo/24/97) 720, 744 50 (Adams, J., dissenting) (3d Cir.1985); Sholly v. NRC, 651 F.2d 780, 786-791 i
(D.C.Cir.1980), uacated and remanded on other grounds, 459 U.S. I194 (1983), and the legislative history behind the so-called Sholly amendments and other attempts by your agency to have Congress change the requirements of Q 189(a); Union ofConcernedScientists v. U.S. Nuc.
Reg. Com'n,735 F.2d 1437,1444-1445 n.12 (D.C.Cir.1984); Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v.
Costle,572 F.2d 872,876 77 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,439 U.S. 824 (1978) (granting license is an adjudicatory process, statute calls for a hearing in an adjudicatory process govemed by "on the record" procedures).
CAN and NIRS contend that the hearing requirer..nt in Q189(a) is a substantive, not a procedural, requirement. We believe the section is predicated upon the intent of C'ongress that interested persons-such as CAN, NIRS, States, vendors, creditors, corporations, and licensee-should be afforded the opportunity of a formal hearing (a substantive matter) when sigaificant changes are acknowledged in the licensing basis for a nuclear reactor facility, i.e. when a fe&ral agency such as your assigns significant rights and interests to private individuals. We realire that your interpretation of the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 2239 will be given some weight in any review of your decision to change the decommissioning rules. At the same time, however, the fact that aller 8 years under the precedents of a major rulemaking which ied your agency to adopt specific findings and make decommissioning rules that are quite at odds with the current ones, less weight should be given to your interpretation of the statutory requirements. See, e.g.,
Appalachlan States Comm'n v. O' Leary,932 F.Supp. 646,652-653 (M.D.Pa 1995) (reviewing court will look to the consistency of an agency's position in evaluating how much deference to accord agency's interpretation),
llowever, even assuming, arguendo, that Q 189(a) does not require hearings based upon a change in the operational status of a licensed nuclear power facility, your agency knows that whenever you permit a licensee to conduct activities that would not otherwise be permitted under the ext' ant license, you need to conduct a license amendment proceeding. CAN v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284, 295 (1st Cir.1995). Thus, once you create a procedure by mle which acknowledges that your licensee may not--to borrow a phrase of one of former managers at CYAPCo- " tear apart"' the facility without first providing certification of permanent fuel removal, a PSDAR, and, significantly, obtaining your permission to proceed following a mandatory 90 day waiting period, you have created a defacto license amendment proceeding.
' Jere LaPlatney then Unit Director, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, said, of the PSADR,"This is the plan. It is a document--sumenary level document on the order of eight to ten pages, it udt have how we plan to tear this plant apart, in accordance with regulations." U.S. NRC, Transcripmf Public Hearing [ sic), Higganum, Connecticut at 22 (January 15,1997).
e.,
. s CAN's andh7R's Letter to Un. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 3 5 Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning,(10/24/97)
Such proceedings, must comport with the procedural requirements of {l89(a). CAN v. NRC,59 F.3d at 294 95. When your agency,in effect amends a license by In actuality making the licensee do things not otherwise required under the extant license, and then obtain permission before undertaking proposed activities-well, then, you have a " permitting" situation which is indistinguishable from what the Administrative Procedure Act calls a " license." 5 U.S.C. i 706(2)(A). You also have an illegal defacto expansion of the licensing basis. CAN v. NRC, 59 F.3d at 294-95. When you grant a license, you must offer hearings to interested persons on request. 42 U.S.C. Q 2239; CAN v. NRC, 59 F. 3d at 294 95. To the extent that your rules authorize yot.r agency to grant decommissioning licenses without providing the opportunity for interested persons to request a hearing, the rules are ultra v/rcs and must be rescinded. A rule that attempts to provide an agency with authority beyond that provided by Congress is facially irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and not otherwise in accordance with law, and must be rescinded. 5. U.S.C. Q 706(2)(A). It is also the case that your agency does not have the statutory authority to retroactively expand the licensing basis ofits licensees, and by statute is limited to granting licenses on limited duration and for fixed purposes. AEA, 42 U.S.C. 2133(c). Thus, your decommissioning rules are ultra vires insofar as they attempt to exercise authority which Congress did not expressly delegate to your agency. A rule that attempts to provide an agency with authority beyond that provided by Congress is facially irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and not othenvise in accordance with law,~ and mus' be rescinded. 5. U.S.C. { 706(2)(A).
t V.
REQUESTED RELIEF As the current decommissioning mies have been shown herein to be arbitrary, capricious, and not otherwise in accordance with law, CAN and NIRS request that your agency immediately rescind the decommissioning mle at issue, and, consequently, grant the following reliefin the matter of the pending decommissioning of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Docket 50-213):(1)your agency will conduct a site-specific health study with attention to the cumulative health impacts upon local residents ofprior operation and contamination and the health impacts l
of effluent releases under DECON and SAFSTOR decommissioning, as well as a site-specific EA and/or EIS on the proposed decommissioning method, with particular attention to impacts, including cumulative upon the human and natural environment, (2) your agency will conduct an adjudicatory type license amendment hening on the decommissioning plan with an opportunity for intervention by interested persons upon request; (3) you will proside for immediate additional oversight of the decommissioning process, which oversight will be continued throughout the entire process.
l Please be advised that none of the relief sought herein may be characterized as falling under 10 l
C.F.R. 6 2.206, as there is no particular enforcement action requested, nor does it pertain to the l
suspension or revocation of a license. Moreover, while it is plain that your agency will need to undertake a rulemakmg cter it rescinds the illegal decommission rules currently in fore. Se relief requested herein is not a request for a rulemakingper se.
1
_. _..-.- y i
, u, p -
CAN's andNIR's Letter to U.S. NRC, Requesting Rule Rescission and Page 36 i
Hearing on Haddam Neck Decommissioning.(10/24/97)
We intend to seek review of an adverse decision of this petition in the United States Court of
- Appeals at a reasonable time prior to the commencement of any maior decommissioning activities at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Therefore, we request that you give this matter expedited consideradon so that, if necessary, the reviewing Coun will have the time it i
needs to enter a judgment on a request to stay the activities at Haddam Neck pending the a resolution on the merits of this matter, in no event later than 20 days after you receive this petition.
Respectfully submitted, 02w)fep.,
C."
nathan M. Block Attorney for CAN and NIRS Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 802-387-2646-i Petitioners' addresses:
Citizens Awareness Network P.O. Box 83 Shelburne Falls. MA 01370-0083 Nuclear Information and Resource Service 142416th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Certificate of Service I, Jonathan M. Block, attorney for NIRS and CAN, aflirm under penalty of perjury that on this day, October 24, 1997, a copy of this petition with attachments was sent retum receipt requested, first class mail, postage pre paid to Legal Department, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant,362 Injun Hollow Rd., East Hampton, CT 06424 3099.
qhMA>
nathan M. Block
-._,--..m
--.----- - m
_c,,wi.,,,-,w..-.
4.
m e..~,._.,,,
y,-y
,,,.y
-y.,.
-r w w
-v-v
Exbe3/d.I CmlENS AWARENESS NETWORK icxu sewemouro fe w w w c o o.r,af6a October.16.1995 i
The Secretary of the Conunission (f.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Conunission Washington. D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Feder:1 Register Notice: NRC 10 CFR Pans 2. 50. 51. RN 3150 Ae96. Deeonunissioning ofNuclear Power Resetors.
Dear Sir.
The ialloning are CAN's conunents in response to the Federal Register Notice for conunents on the proposed rule change for the deconunissioning of nuclear power reactors. A hard copy will follow in the mail.
Request to Withdraw Proposed Decontatissioning Rule in the uske of the Appellate Coun ruling in CAN vs. NRC. CAN requests the Conunission withdraw the* proposed Rulemaking and revise it so that it may cenfonn to the ruling of the court decis, ion. We believe that the codificatien of the experimental deconunissioning of the Roue reactor is an abdication of regulatorv oversight and control of the deconunissioning process. Nuclear power generators should not be given broad discretionary powers to regulate themselves. The responsibility to preteet the public and worker health and safety and the environment must remain the domain of the NRC.
Rettulatory Distinctions: A Blur Can requests the Nuclear Regulatorv Conuuission retain its distinct categories between reactor operations and cessation. We believe that the Possession only License should remain in place. It affords citizens the possibility for a hearing prior to reae:or deconunissioning.
~ The opponunity for a hearing must not be withdrawn by the Conunission. The hearing is an essential means for conununities to participate in maners that vitally erTeet them. It allows demeersey to endure and institutions to be accountable fer their actions. To ctfer a hearing at the tennination of the site rather than at the cessatio'n ofoperatiens reduces citizen panicipation.
In addition. CAN does not believe that major component removal (CRP) should be author t.ed before the subnnssion and approval of a deconunissiong plan by the NRC. We i
are coneemed with the.\\lemorandum and Order CL 95 13 in which the Conunission allous O1
the CRP to proceed at the Trojan teactor before the approval of a deconunissioning plan.
Allowing POE to continue the removal of the pressurizer and the steam generators is a violation of the deconunissioning mle in existence since 198S. It has the potential to codify the Roue experiment which has been struck doun by the Appellate Coun. A clear definition I
must be established to clarify what constitutes major and minor component removal.
4 i
. A meeting does not afford citizens the level ofinstitutional accountability necessao given the dangers of emiro-toxic contamination inherent in the resetor cessation. htfomutional meetings. as experienced at Rowe, were used to obfascate, eenfuse, and ignore the concenu oflocal citizens. Both the Federal District Coun and the Appellate Court chastised the i
agenev for this approach. If the conununity has concenu. and there is no regulatory recourse.
i save one " meeting" with NRC. the Commission will. in fact. ereate greater polarization between the conununity and the regulator. This may lead to intensified mistrust of the agency and further costly legal battles. The meetings. envisioned by the Site.Specifie Workshop that are referred to in the drafhule. proposed that the NRC would offer a series of meetings to the conununity.
The purpose of these meetings was:
to help conununities understand the processes of deconunissioning and how dismantlement impacts their conununity to help conununities detennine whether an Advisory Board would be an effective means l
3 to edueste the conununity to deconunissioning. panicipate in pollution reduction. and-i participate in site remediation to help ( if a conununity chooses to develop an Advisory Board), choose a neutral and trusted local govenunent body as the convener of the board.
Finding of No Sleniticant Ensironmental Impact Availability The AppeUate Coun justices opined that your agency was in violation ofits oun regulations and Rulemaking process in approving the experimental deconunissioning at the Rowe reactor without a deconunissioning plan and an environmental assessment. In addition, the eoun has mled that deconunissioning is a maior federal action and requires NEPA comelianet "An agency esn not skin NEPA or other statutory commands by exempting a licensee from compulsory compliance, and then simply labeling its decision " mere oversight" rather than a major federal action. To do so is manifestly arbitrary and capricious " We believe NEPA eompliance is required and mandatory by the coun for deconunissioning. A Generie Enviromnental Impact Statement can not substitute for an individual EIS, as computer modeling is no substitute for actual testing CAN believes it is essential for NRC to continue to define deeonunissioning as a major federal action. As the Appellate Coun epined "
tt is undisputed that deconunissioning is
. an action uhieh. even under the Conunission's new policy, requires NEPA compliance s
10C.F.R.S $1.95(b.)"_ CAN believes your attempt to streamline the process for the utility and deregulate NRC requirements abdiestes your responsibility to protect the health and safett of the workers, the publie, the enviromnent. and also undennmes citizen due process.
We believe the NRC is preseming arguments that lack substance for reclassifsing deeununiuioning as no longer a majer federal action As the coun opined. "The Conuniaien elevates labels over substance."
4 4 'M#VWT't'*v='Wn s'e M'mg.e-e*'
-6ewr1r?"9'* rey'*W-*W*="T't'89***M~-
PttMrt*rW*'
v N SM GE 4*T9Td'vyr W-MP"**WvwP'?
S"'1-==W'sr"9wtert -my y t rse
- -19W-uHx'*F9"'
W 11F'""
TMW 9" 95 V'""
The remediation of sites is important for resetor conununities. The remov ! of highly irradiated components still pose a hazard to the host conmumity and to the workers. The exposure to workers during deconunissioning is still signi6eant. At Rowe. the containment sphere had to be evacuated repeatedly during the underwater euning of the million curie batDe. The presence of an on site, resident NRC inspector is essential for deeenunissioning.
Although the efnuent releases into the host conunumty are smaller during deconunissioning than during standard operation, at Roue during decanunissioning. there were over 70 releases into our river. Since reactor conununities are concerned with long tenu exposure to low level radiation, these releases u ere of great eoneern to our conununitv. The long tenn exposure to low levd radiation is of geat eencem.
In light of the reconunendation to the Minister of the Enviroiunent and Energy from the Advisory Conunittee on Enviromnental Standards in Canada, the exposure to any tritium may be harmful and dangerous due to its eareinogenie, mutagenie, and teratogenie effects.
The Conunittee has asked that tritium be classified as an enviro toxin with an eventual release enteria of :ero. They have recotr: mended a standard of 100 Bq L for intuediate initiation. reduced to 20 Bq'lin five years. and then a goal of zero release. The present EPA standard is 740 Bq L for drinking water. This standard does not address the evaporation of tritium into the atmosphere and the secondary ingestion pathways through vegetaticit inhalation. and ingestion.
Community Participation: Site Specific Adsisory Boards CAN believes the opportunity for one public meeting before partial deecnunissioning occurs is inadequati One meeting uill not infonn the conununity of the processes involved in deconunissioning or the attematives. We request that adjudicatery hearings remain available to the public to voice their coneems in maners that vnally etfeet them. To orfer an adjudicator, hearing at tennination of the site is eeneciving of the process backw ards. Man) of these sites will never be tem:inated due to contamination. The detennination of the djsmantlement optien uill precede conununity partie:pation. therefore shutting the host conununity otn of the ability to effectively participate.
At a Site. Specific Advisory Board workshop. held by the NRC in Dee mber,1991.
representatives from reactor and deconumssioning conununities. local govenunents.
Attomey Generals. Native Amerieans. all speed that Site Specifte Advisory Boards should be offered to site conununities undergoing major deconunissiening activities.2J1 representatives were in agreement that reactor dismantlement eenstituted major desonunissioning activities. Those at the workshop u ho disagreed with this assessment represented the interests of the nuclear industri.
It is essential that the conununity in the efUuent pathway of reactors have the opponumty to participate in pollution reduction and prevention during deconunissioning This parue:patton must be meaningful. The passive conununity parteipation in ulueh limited infonn. tion is fed to citizens to allay their fears is ineffective. Holding a meeting in a conununity to
'infonn" them of deconunissioning is inadequate. The Appellate court has rejected this 1
e
~
e_,.
-.__.__._._._.______________.y approach. A process must evolve which is responsive to the coneems of etTeeted eitizens w ho
- will continue to bear the burdens oflong tenu exposure to lou-level radiation and contamination. Citizens must have a substantive role in deconunissioning in order to clarify.
negotiate and protcet their communitys interests.ind to satisfv the requirements of a -
constitutional demeeracy.
j Conununities should be given the opponunity to panicipate in deconunissioning from its I
onset. Therefore.CAN proposes that Site.specilie Advisory Boards be offered to reactor communities as a fomtal mechanism of conununity panicipation during deconunistioning.
since the process of site clean.up could spun decades if not lifetimes. The Advisory Board would meet regularly to give meaningful input into decisions eeneerning health and safety.
pollution prevention and reduction. This Board would function to educate the conununity regarding the impacts of the teelmology that exist in their neighborhood. It would include -
diverse interests such as loest govenunent, public interest ;;roups, representatives of towns in the elliuent pathway. Native Americans. reactor representatives, and Federal and State i
regulators such as the NRC. the %!DPH. DEP. etc. An ecology of democracy must develop for citizens. scientists, technologists. industry, and regulators to work together to solve the contamination problems inherent in the nuclear fuel cycle.
Sincerely.
Deborah Katz President Citizens Awareness Network E
l:
Exhibit 2. ' -
w< w w.
9 c
(.: b le _
L.:
n c
Nuclear Information and Resource Service 142416th Street NW. 59 ti601, Wuhirgton. OC 20036 202 325 0C02;'ax: 202 462 2183: e-mail mrsnetcaol.com Octcber 18,1995 The Secreta:7 of the Commissien U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccomission Washington, DC 20555 Atte: %n: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on NRC Proposed Amendmenn to Rulemaking on Decommissioningof Nuclear-Pomr Reactors
Dear Sir:
Introductic.n Nuclear Informadon and Re:ource Service (NIRS), in response to the Nuctent Reguletery Commission (NRC) preposed:ule to amend 10 CFR Parts 2, 50, and f 1. submits the.following comments.
Tne NRC propeses to amend the decommissioning process in such a mar. er as to provide for a more mfermed public, greater public participa:iun, and allow the licensee to perform decommissiccing acdvities provided certain anstramts are met. NIRS concurs with these goals but centends that the proposed amendments do ot eZTectively go hr enouch to accomplish 2e stated aims Closure for the comment period for de preposed tle comes en the heels of a U.S Appe!'ve Court decisica critici:ing the NRC procedural process fer decemniissiening activiss l
ccmed out at de Yankee Rowe nuclear powre plast in Western Massachusetts (Citi:e:a l
A vn-ress Nc wcrk v NRC. 59 F.3d 2Srl:t Cir. Is95) and the suspension'cy NRC of de:ommissioning plans and acuvities at the Yankee Rowe and Trojan nuc! ear power plants.
In lieu of the Appella:e Court decision and criticisms of the NRC's 1993 interpretation of its decemr.ssioning regulction:,NIRS makes te following comments in the NRC's pr: posed l
amendments to the rt!cmaking.
l l
Qv,o mw.amv
.kiicani to a sound non nuclear enery policy.
"Early/Larue Comnonent Removal Pruvruma huld h RneuenL 1 Am A Mal.,r Decommisalonian Activity And rncornormtmlinen inoroved Decnenifulanine Plane NES is ad=2r-tly opposed to any amendments to te decommissioning rulemaking which would codif/ de Early Component Removal P:cgmm (CRP) u a license activity take prior to decommissioning and not constituted as a =ajor dismanti!ng or decor:.missicaing activity. Ln effect, NRC is anempdng to codify 6:ough agulation precisely whauhey uvulda't do legally. ne Massachusetts F.ederal District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts severely criticized NRC and YAEC activities as "a concerted bureaucratic effort to thwar:the forts of le:al :itizens about an event that vitally affe:ts dem and icir ch!!dren/' Tae First Cimuit Appellate Cou:t criticized the NRC's 1993 decommissioning policy shift on CRP as " utterly
,N irraconal/'
NIRS conteds ist upon de ! css of a licensee's operation permit the removal and
.m transport oflarge co:nponents including steam generators, steam pressutizer,large diameter.
s contaminated piping and'rescior intemals constitutes a signincant percentage of on site residualj
- l-radioactivity, discoedting irradiated fuel, and should logically be considered a "mafer 0;[,
2 ?.
dismantilng" acdvity to be included in a decon=ussionmg plan'.
'In the case of Yankee Rowe, these large ecmponents onstita:ed.as much as 90% ofthe U'>
c on site radioacivity.NIRS contends that Yankee Atomie Electric Company (YAEC) undertnnk
.Jc' the CRP in an ' effort to expedite the decem=issibnii piecedure at de Rowe facility as a cost' ~ '
t.l beneficial licensing action..YAEC proceeded to remove the large componems under 10 CFR..
50.59 mod!5ed to accom:nodate a possession only license. The NRC Commissioners were split.
(3 2) on the Rowe CRP with the dissenting Commissioners expressing de view that CRP should
.s be included in thc dccommissioning plan.The affec'ted pubtle in western Manachusens had repeatedly questicned both the logic and legality ofiat procedure, uking for both a public -
L,,,
hearing and a mview of se licensee's qualification that no unreviend. safety issues were raised under 50.59 by the CRP. Ignored by the NRC, the community cencerns were upheld in de Appellate Cou:t decision in striking down the NRC interpretative changes to the dewtuud.uloning tegulations as an accommeda: ion to YAEC which in the court's siew was "arbit:3ry and capiicious." Tne court then rema::ded the Yankee Rowe decommissiening plan back to the NRC for reconsideration.
Simultaneously to the NRC issuing an onier to suspend all major de om:nissiccini' activity at the Yankee Rowe site until an adjudicatory hearing is held to resiew the issues raised by te CRP and te MRC's precedural handli::g, NRC issued.nimilar vrder to Pocl=d General Electric Company suspending any " major dismantling" activity at ie Trojan nuclear power plant uhHe -11mvHg *he lic mee's CRP acdvity to continue.
NRC based its decision to allow CRP to continue st Tmjan stating ist the program was "almost done and affe:ts just 1% of(nonfuel) radioactivity hem the plant."
.N1R5 contends that this statement by NRC is a clear example of the same irradvual decision making process used to at:cm=odate industry economic interests over potential publi:
safety issues. Tne curie count enmriruted by 1% of on site residual radioacdvity frem ie 1130 megawatt Trojan nuclear reactor when compared to de curie coimt of 90% on site residual radioactivity from the 179 megawatt Rowe nuclear reactor is a meaningless regulatory exercise in te: us of potential worker exposures, pubt:c ' ealth =d safety and environmental impac'.. SIRS a
contends ist it is just more of the same circumnasigation of NRC regulations to accommodate 2
!icensee's dumping ofituost liabillry fer generat=g radioacdve wasm and ob6: scar'ng environmen:al and public health issues.
Even by NRC's own rule =aking dedr.itiouf " major de:emmissiccing activity" the dednition ch6sen for a nuclear ;owee rueer staus "any activi:y dat results in re-ranent te= oval of major radioactive compenets." Ac:etdingly, a"=ajor radioactive compocent' is defined "to compdse &c reaccr vessel and intema!s, steam generators, pressurnes, large bere reacter coolant system piping and othe large compenents ist :re radica:nve."
It would the:sfore appear the NIRS dat su:h a willy niity approach will also pros e burdeuwmc to t!m staff to consider en a cue by case plant specific basis fer what constitutes major dismant!cment ac:ivity af.et the less of the opeation license.
NIRS' comments therefore reflect 6st acy amendmei:ts to the decommissiening miemaking should cla:ify that all large component dismantle =ent activities unde::aken after an c peration licens'e is expi:td, revoked or surrendered and under the regulation of a possession only -
license shuuld be respcasibly managed $ rough an approved decommissiening plan.
- q.m,,
,3 y
MRCShould Reemin A Distinction Between Onention i feense 2nd Ponession Oniv Ele ne.
..Re proposed rulemaking provides thata'P.e Se cessation of the opera:ihg licensing $c licenice would'no longer iiced to apply for a possessien only license amendment (POLA) to obtam regulatory relief.when pe:nnnently shutting down, A must cur cstly' be doce under the exis:ing deiommissicaing regulations. NIRS contends 6at tis proposed amendme::t wwld L
simultanensly eliminate the hearing emit!cd t'o de public when a license is amended. This is an.
issue cental to the Appellate Court decision in CAN v WC (f 9 F.3d ::341st Cir.1995). N!RS contends that te proposed arnendment is contrary to de spirit of NRC's stated goals to allow for-g: tater public partic:pation and represents another example ofNRC's anempi to codify trough regulation what they were unable to legally finesse irough the Federal Court. It is apparent to NIRS that the " regulatory relief %ughny amendment is to ::!ieve the licensee of public involvement th:cugh the hearing process as the plant is sh= ting down.
herefose, NIRS is 4damantly opposed to de elimina: ion of the Possessien Only Lice::se Amendment requir: ment for licensees wto 1:t per:nanently shutting down.
A Conu lete Sita Chr2cterirstion Should Be f acheded in The Phste 1 Activities The licensee should cenduct a ec= pie:e and torough site characterina:ica in the Phase 1 activities. The characte:ization :hould in:!ude all sites within te site perimeter where the burial of radioactive waste has occur:td during the license:i pericd.
Site Soccific Adviserv Boards Should Be Established Eir!v On For all Decnmminstoning
$ilt!.
A Site Specific Advisery Board sh:uld be se: up d=ing the Phase One at:ivities to facilitate :ommunity t:nst and undersumding of various 15;cets of de decom=2ssioning process. Early involvement by a site spe:ific advuory board would enhance public participation th:vughvut the decommissioning procc:3. Most i=portant!y, the site specific advisory board should have access to all docenents f:t all aspects of the de::mmissioning process for public
- tview and public comment. Tne advise:y board shculd be ::nvened by a neutral and trusted loc:d govemment body. Cenvnunity leaders in de effluent i:scharge patway should inve meaningful represen:a: ion on te advise:y beanis.
l l
._.2
.. : %:i
'
- C+gf,,
Te hnical Sggcifiestions For Effluents thould Be Strencthened To Strive T*wsr.'lIvry Dilth2r.gt It is imponnat that the com= unity in the ethent discharge pathway be prctected du:iq de dismantle =ent and decom=issiening process. Language should be incorporated into an a=endment in 10 CTR 50 36b to clearly indicate tat all new scientific infcm.ation pe:tnining to radoactive discharges will be incorporated mto a:: updated safety analysis reports fer ce licensee's Technical SpeciEcations.
As an example, NIRS points to new infotmation recently made available trough the Advisory Comminee en Environmental Standvds (ACES) for Ontario Drinking Wzter Objective
-;x for fritium where te committee made ::ccmmendaticas to !mmedately set te standard at 100-
" l ~.
Beit. The current EPA standard is NO Bq/L. ACES rarcer recommeads mat because very low fi, levels of Tritium are known to cause human caneces and mutations, te standard should be
.N strengther.ed to 20 Bq./L in five yean. ne Intematioul Joint Commissica recog*ing tat.
.. k.
Tritium is a persistent toxin wit a half life of 12.5 yrs and has recc= mended tat de stand =ibc7, gg 3,.i established.at zero discharge.
M-Qf The effort here is to establish a trend where the NRC and.$e lic:nsce are constant!y e Eb striving tourd a reduction in hazrd to 6e public and de envirencent during.te
- 4 ' l'
"..lb n
'dewmminiunbg and rite remedation process g
Enviranment21 Ou211fiestion EO) of EauipmentImnortantic Safety Should Remsin Ic cj7 FfTect For thr frrsdiated Fuel Pool As Defense In Denth \\feasures As long as irradiated fuel remains on site, EQ for cooling capability to de irradiated fuell [,
pool must be maintained to pmut.a;ainst Lon-Of-Offsite Power (LOOP) cccidents. SimilarlyJ M EQ should be maiatsined for all systems, structures, and compecents pertaining to the irradiated,@
fuel pool to praect asamst the loss of service water or the rupture of the pool.
Q 9,
Dismantlement Activities Pronosed Under-10 CFR 50.59 The I feensee's Anshsis Of-rif6 Unreviewed 531ery issues Should Be Made AV ithble For Public Eumination All dismantlement operations undertaken 2: test or experimental activities under 10 CFR ~jy; 50.59 require that the license per#nnn an analysis to determine Wncier or not the activny genen tes any u=eviewed safety issues. NIRS contends iat de de:ommissiening regulations
'g,@
should dacct tlat the licensee provide the NRC with 6e docu=entation dat specifies wheder er not an unrevieWed safety issue is mvolved rather than rely on an cptional NRC audit as de
',;3 ti present regu!ation provides. As a measure of farter pbiic information and Tast the proposed
.h advisory board and the public would Gen have dire t acceu tn exarnine de licensee's enalysis.
'. N
- lr As Long A5 Irradisted Fuel Remains Oc-site. The 1 :censee Shouhi.
,y Be Reauired To \\fsintain The Canabilltv To Handle Irradiated Fuet
- y he faulty seal en the :rtadiated fael d:y storage cask at Palisades nu:! ear power plant in
_ [
Michipa d: men:tmtes the need for the licensee *o retsic capabili y tn heCe irradiated fael fe
'(
l the entire time irradiated fael remains on site.
. ?.-
~-n l
.T'.'
.y a
C-u
~
n s-
ExhiM 3 e
Before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
)
In the matter of
)
Haddam Neck
)
i' (Connecticut Yankee Atornic Power Co.)
)
Affidavit of Dr. Marvin ResnikotT Decommissioning
)
September 30,1997 l
)
Affidavit of Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D, I, Marvin Resnikoff, being duly sworn, upon oath state as follows:
- Introduction
- 1. My name is Marvin Resnikoff. I am a resident of the State of New York, residing in New York in the County of New York.
I am the Senior Associate at Radioactive Wastc Management Associates (RWMA), a private technical consulting firm based in New York City. Our firm works exclusively on radioactive waste issues, including low-level waste and irradiated fuel storage and trutsponation. Our office is located at 526 W. 26* Street, Rm.
!17, New York, NY 10001. My resume is attached as Exhibit A.
A description of Radioactive Waste Management Associates and a list of our clients is attached as Exhibit B.
2, I am a physicist and, since 1974, have worked full time on radios.ctive waste issues, including low-level waste, decommissioning, and high level waste transponation and storage issues. In 1965 I graduated from the University of Michigan with a Doctor of Philosophy in Theoretical Physics, specializing in group theory and particle physics. I received a Bachelors of Arts and Masters of Science in mathematics and physics from the same institution.
- 3. A paper on decommissioning reactors I wrote in 1976 (Environment, December 1976) was the first to show that reactors would remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
The importance of our discovery was noted by Science magazine in 1982. See Exhibit C. As part of our work analyzing radioactive waste shipments to low-level waste facilities and waste impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle, I have stayed up to-date on the decommissioning literature, including more recent NRC repons. This past yer.r I reviewed decommissioning reports for the Rancho Seco reactor (California), the Big Rock Point reactor (Michigan), and the Yankee Rowe reactor (Massachusetts). To prepare this affidavit, I reviewed the following documents related to the decommissioning of Haddam Neck: the " Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report" (PSDAR), the Final Decommissioning Rule, the
" Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,"
NUREG 0586 (August 1988) (GEIS), my affidavits on decoramissioning the Yankee Rowe
)
reactor before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and other decommissioning documents in that case, and also other decommissioning documents, such as NUREG 0130 and the more recent updates including decommissioning documents we maintain in our library.
J
i
' Affldant ofDr. M Resntkof Haddam Neck case Page:
09/30/97 4.
For the past six years I have served as an expen witness in court cases invoking personal injury due to radiation exposure. A listing of these cases is attached as Exhibit D, h!y role in these court cases has been to cor duct dose reconstruction studies, i.e., to calculate radiation exposures to plaintiffs due to radoactive materials. Some of this work required knowledge and use of risk assessment software, such as RESRAD, and knowledge of radiological protection documents issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), En ironmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), National Council on Radiological Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).
- 5. In addition, RWhtA has conducted technical analyses for public interest groups and local governments at each of the proposed low-level waste disposal facilities across the country, including hfartinsville (IL), S. Windsor (CT), Chatham County (NC), Hudspeth County (TX),
Ward Valley (CA) and Boyd County (NE). In the process of conducting this analysis, we have examined and used the computer programs hf0DFI OW, PRESTO CPG and IhfPACTS, used to estimate groundwater flow and risk due to radioactive materials. I served as project manager and focused on the risk asseisment sections of our repons.
- 6. I am thoroughly familiar with issues invoking irradiated fuel transpon and dry storage at power reactors and low level waste transport. Between 1991 and 1995, for the Nuclear Waste Projects Office, State of Nevada, I studied the probability of severe accidents in highway and rail transportation, namely high impact collisions or long-duration, high-temperature fires that could lead to a release of radioactive materials from a snipping cask. In the course of this work I conducted an in-depth study of the computer software RADTRAN which calculates the risk cf transporting irradiated fuel and low-level waste. I was also responsible.for reports on transportation oflow level waste to the proposed low-level waste fscilities at Sierra Blanca (TX) and Chatham County (NC). In the case of Haddam Neck,
. Northeast Utilities [ parent company and part owner of ficensee Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, hence, hereafter CYAPCo] estimates the radiation exposures to the public due to the transport of radioactive materials from the site.
- 7. In 1993, I prepared aflidavits on behalf of the Idaho Attorney General in a proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the District ofIdaho on the risk of transponing irTadiated naval fuel from naval shipyards to Idaho N:.tional Engineering Laboratory, in 1992, I prepared aflidavits on behalf of the New hiexico Attorney General in a proceeding before the U.S.
District Coun for the District of Columbia on the risks of transporting plutonium-contaminated wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New hiexico. In 1933, I prepared affidavits on behalf of Southwest Research and Information Center in a proceeding before the U.S. District Court regarding the adequacy of the " Preliminary WIPP Transportation Analysis," prepared by Westinghouse for the Department of Energy. Southwest Research and Information Center is a public interest organization based in Albuquerque, New hiexico.
S. During the two year period, 1981-1983, I directed a study on the transponation and storage of nuclear waste for the Council of Economic Priorities, a New York based research organization. The study I co-authored titled, The Next Nuclear Gamble Transportarion and Storage ofNuclear Waste, details the hazard of transporting nuclear fuel and outlines safer
~ -
=_
' N))dat ofDr. M. Resnikof Haddam Neck case page3 09/30/97 options.
During the course of this investigation I read hundreds of reports on the transportation and storage of nuclear materials, including every major study published by the Depanment of Energy, the Department of Transpcrtation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In my present position, I continue to keep abreast of the latest developments in the field of high level waste transportation and storage.
- 9. Northeast Utilities, pan owner and operator of the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Haddam Neck reactor) at Haddam Neck, Connecticut, has estimated the impacts of placing in storage and transporting irradiated fuel from the Haddam Neck reactor, a topic with which I am also familiar. In December 1991, I prepared aflidavits and testified on behalf of the Mdwekanton Sioux Tribe in proceedings before the hiinnesota Public Utility Commission on the risks of storing irradiated fuel in dry storage metal casks at the Prairie Island reactor in hiinnesota. In 1995, on behalf of the Lake Michigan Federation and Citizen Utility Board, I analyzed the safety of the VSC 24 cask at the Point Beach reacters and its alternatives for hearings before the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. I also prepared an aflidavit for the Lake Michigan Federation for hearings in federal court regarding dry storage in the VSC-24 cask at the Palisades reactor in Michigan.
- 10. In 1987, I was a consultant to the State of Alaska Attorney General on the subject of air transportation of plutonium. In 1985, I served as a consultant to the State of Utah in preparing comments on the transportation sections of the draft Environmental Assessments for a high level waste repository in Utah. In 1984, I served as a consultant to the Town and Country Planning Association on the transportation of nuclear fuel through London, and i
prepared testimony for the Sizewell B Public Inquiry. I have rerved as a consultant to the Illinois Attorney General on the expansion of the spent fuel pools at GE's Morris Operation and Commonwealth Edison's Zion reactors I was part of an international team of experts for the State..of Lower Saxony, West Germany, the Oorleben International Review, which reviewed the plans of the nuclear industry to locate a reprocessing and waste disposal operation at Gorleben, West Germany.
In 1983, I completed a study for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on the costs / benefits of recycling plutonium. In 1975 I prepared aflidavits on behalf of the New York Attorney General in proceedings before the U.S. District Court, New York, on air shipinents of plutonium through New York's Kennedy Airport, and transport ofirradiated fbel through New York City. I was an invited speaker at the 1976 Canadian meeting of the American Nuclear Se:iety to discuss the risk of transporting plutonium by air.
- 11. I have testified over 30 times before State Legislatures and the U.S. Congress as an expert on issues related to nuclear energy, including the economics of reprocessing, the long term radiation hazards of decommissioning nuclear reactors, and the problems of transporting nuclear materials.
12 Between 1974 and 1981, I was employed as a lecturer at Rachel Carsor, College, an undergraduate environmental studies division of the State University of New York at Buffalo, where I taught energy courses. During the years 19751977 I also worked for the New York Public Interest Research Group. In 1973 I was a Fulbright lecturer in the area of group theory and particle physics at Universidad de Chile in Santiago, Chile. From 1967 to 1973 I was an Assistant Professor of Physics at the State University of New York at Buffalo.1 hwe written 1
~
- AD1 davit ofDr. M Resmkof Haddam Neck case Page 4 09/30/97 numerous papers in the area of panicle physics under grants from the National Science Foundation.
Summary of Affidavit
- 13. This affidavit addresses whether the new decommissioning mle protects the public health and safety. In my professional opinion, the new decommissioning rule does not require an adequate decommissioning plan or hearing process, both of which are necessary to assure the safe decomndssioning of a nuclear power reactor. Under the new decommissioning rule, the public has no hearing rights. Funher, the 1988 GEIS on decommissioning, prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, does not support the new decommissioning rule and the activities it permits. There are environmental consequences for the two possible methods of decommissioniag which are site specific and should be evaluated at each reactor site. But, an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on site specific consequences of the chosen decommissioning options for Haddam Neck has not been prepared.
Site specific contamination and site specific transportation infrastructure issues at Haddam Neck requires an EIS be done immediately, before CYAPCo is allowed to irreversibly commit major resources to a particular method of decommissioning and to carry heavy loads over narrow, windy rural roads. Finally, the new decommissioning rule does not adequately protect the public health and safety in that it essentially turns regulatic.i over to the licensees. There is no real difference between the Component Removal Project which took place at Yankee Rowe and which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held to be illegal, and what will soon take place at Haddam Neck under CYAPCo's PSDAR which opts for rapid decontamination and dismantlement (DECON) of the reactor. The remainder of this affidavit discusses these points.
- 14. The decommissioning plan must have suflicient detail as to provide the licensee with clev!y delineated procedures which the NRC can or may enforce, step-by step, in a systematic way (a) In comparison to decommissioning plans issued prior to the application of the current decommissioning rule, for example, the Yankee Rowc reactor plan, the PSDAR for Haddam Neck is no more than a mere outline. For the Yarikee-Rowe reactor, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) prepared the " Decommissioning Environmental Repon" (-100 pgs), and NRC Staff prepared an Envirora ental Assessment [EA]
based on YAEC's repon. YAEC also prepared a " Supplementary Emironmental Report, Post-Operating License Stage"(-100 pgs). These reports discussed the site-specific emironmemal impact of decommissioning the Yankee Rowe reactor, in contrast CYAPCo devoted two pages to the environmental impact of decommissioning. YAEC produced a " Final Safety Analysis Report" (FSAR) (-400 pgs) which incorporated detailed step-by-step decommissioning plans, radiation survey readings, estimated occupational exposures and revised Tu:hnical Specifications.
Funher, the FSAR analyzed potential accidents, and radioactive waste management.
Based on the FSAR, NRC Staff produced a Safety Evaluation Repon (-30 pgs).
YAEC also produced a " Decommissioning Plan" (-500 pgs) which contained a l
detailed facility description, decommissioning activities and planning, radiological l
' Affidan ofDr. M Resnnof Haddam Neck case Page5 09/30/97 survey and worker protection program, accident analysis, decommissioning cost estimate, accommissioning technical specifications, and a decommissioning quality assurance plan. In contrast, the CYAPCo's PSDAR for the Haddam Neck reactor has only ten pages devoted to the same topics as the above 900+ pages for the decommissioning of the Yankee Rowe reactor.
(b) The PSDAR does not provide enough detail for the public to determine radiation doses during decommissioning. Exposure issues are of particular concern given Haddam Neck's history of very large tritium releases during its operating life. In fact on March 9,1996, Ms. Rosemary Bassilakis, CAN, wrote a letter to Mr. Alan Wang, NRC Project Manager for Haddam Neck, expressing concern about Haddam Neck's incredibly high tritium releases over a long time period, due to continued operation with leaky fuel rods, and the use of stainless steel cladding. The public is greatly concerned that more liquid waste will be generated under DECON and disposed ofin the nearby river.
Public exposures are also of concern given Haddam Neck's sloppy radiological controls resulting in excessive contamination of the site and uncontrolled releases into the environment. The Decommissio: Ng Plan should provide exposure rates at each section of the facility, and projected exposures for each decommissioning task. Each step of the process should be laid out, such as isolation of the feel pool, removal of steam generators, and reactor vessel removal. Before the present decommissioning rule, the Safety Analysis Report detailed the changes in Technical Specifications from the operating reactor to the decommissioned reactor. This allowed NRC staff and the public to see whether the stafling and training of r. sonnel was adequate for decommissioning, and showed exactly how the plant would operate in a decommissioned state.
Activities previously analyzed may become unsafe if attempted under reduced stafling conditions.
In contrast, the PSDAR is a mere narrative or sketchy outline, completely lacking in detail. The PSDAR consists of assertions by CYAPCo without the underlying basis.
l Without this underlying information, the public cannot know if these assertions are correct, and NRC Staff cannot determine if decommissioning is proceeding safely, or whether or not the process that is being undertaken is dangerous.
l (c) As an example, a cask drop in the irradiated fuel pool was previously considered in the l
Haddam Neck FSAR, but not when the plant was in a decommissioned state. Are the stalling requirements sufficient to respond to emergencies? Will the plant have qualified nuclear power reactor engineers on duty or just security guards? This information should be contained in the Tech Spec:, but this cannot be found in the PSDAR, and, hence, it is not readily available to the NRC, the State of Connecticut, or the public.
- 15. No hearing rights. Neither the public nor the State may challenge licensee plans except after all major decommissioning is over and there is a " site plan." Even such minimal, after the fact
- A))ldent of& M Resniko]J Haddam Neck case page 6 09/30/97 participation has been limited by mandating a 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L type hearing, which means no cross-examination opportunities, merely placing material "on the record"-which the NRC may ignore ifit chooses. The current decommissioning rules does not require a hearing process or provide for the NRC halting decommissioning activity until problems with the PSDAR are resolved.
The NRC has eliminated the distinction between operating and decommissioning, so there is no final licen<e amendment,just "terminstion" of ficense.
(a) Under the current decommissioning rule, the licensee does not have to file a decommissioning plan for approval prior to initiating decommissioning actisities.
Rather, the licensee files a PSDAR outlining proposed activities, time schedule, a few tables showing estimate of expected costs and whether the environmental impacts of proposed activities are allegedly bounded by the existing GEIS.
Following a mandatory hold of 90 days, under the current rules, work can then proceed. This allows the licensee to engage in activities which may have serious public health and environmental impacts, without allowing the public an opportunity to protect its interests and without the filing of a site specific EA or EIS, For example, the licensee has indicated that it intends to ship the reactor vessel intact, without removing highly radioactive internals. The core baffle and other internals constitute what is known as greater than class C low-level waste, unfit for disposal in a near surface facility. A shipment of the reactor vessel with internals would be an unreviewed safety issue, viz.
the adequacy of the vessel as a shipping container and the load (which would be much greater than for the Yankee Rowe reactor vessel). The Haddam Neck vessel removal and shipping is likely to be entirely experimental, resulting in a precedent which will then be applied to much larger vessel packages in future decommissionings.
(b) Upon submitting a PSDAR, " minor decommissioning" can commence. Besides the term " minor decommissioning" being much too vague a description, if reac: ors which are prematurely shutdown over the next decade are 3 nilar to Haddam Neck, i.e., out of compliance with their Tech Specs and their FSAR in shambles, then allowing facilities to begin undertaking even " minor decommissioning" could be a grave mistake. Workers may become contaminated due to excessive contamination in the facilities; tritium and other radionuclide releases and extensive " hot particle" dispersals could take place. Under decommissioning conditions, the Technice Specifications should clearly delineate the requirements for decommissioning in a " hot particle" environment, including the staf!ing and monitoring requirements.
Facilities like Haddam Neck will need time to " reinvent" their FSAR as it relates to decommissioning.
Moreover, the PSDAR does not require NRC approval, and after a 90 day period, Haddam Neck can beginning removing major components--even before the NRC has docketed any comments cbout the PSDAR. The NRC's rule institutionalizes the Component Removel Projec* which the First Ci*cuit found to be illegal. The current decommissioning rule permits de licensee to control its own decommissioning as ifit were doing repairs and maintenance on an operating facility. Even though massive amounts of radioactive materials are being torn down and shipped from the site,
- Affdavut ofDr. M Resmkoff Haddam Nesk ca:e page 7 09/30/97 everything is done under rule 10 CFR 50.59. The NRC take a backseat to the licensee's self regulation, unless and until the licensee voluntarily tells the NRC that something cannot be done under 50.59, or there is some kind of accident.
(c) In addition to the health and safety issue, the estimated DECON costs are at least twice as great as those estimated in the GEIS, i.e., the actual costs are well outside the GEIS " envelope" for acceptable decommissioning costs. Yet, the NRC's current decommissioning rules permit no hearing or public intervention on this issue.
- 16. The new decommissioning rule is outside the 1988 GEIS, thus permitting major federal actions to begin before an adequate environmental assessment.
(a) The 1988 GEIS was created with the " adjustment" that the exposures would occur in a controlled emironment and supervised order, choreographed in reference to a detailed plan.
The statement of consideration for the GEIS noted that the decommissioning plan was the key means to safeguarding occupational and public health.
The 1988 GEIS was not intended to be a " stand alone" document. The GEIS refers to the need for a " final detailed decommissioning plan." According to the GEIS', "a final detailed decommissioning plan is required for review and approval by the NRC prior to cessation of facility operation or shortly thereafter. Besides the description of the decommissioning alternative which will be used, the final plan should include a description of the plans to ensure occupational and public safety and to protect the environment during decommissioning..."
In addition, the GEIS states that a supplemental EIS, based cn site specific factors, may still be needed.
According to the GEIS, "a licensee should submit a supplemental environmental report and safety analysis and, based on these submittals, the NRC should consider prepuation and issuance of an EA.."' Important site.
specific issues must be addressed at Haddam Neck. For example, the Haddam Neck reactor has a private discharge canal which carried waste down Haddam Neck near the mouth i he Salmon River. The Salmon River is the location of a conservincy site.
"The Saimon River contains a very large tidal marsh and is home to a number of state-listed rare species. Wild rice growing in the marsh supports a large waterfowl population. Salmon swim up the river and over a ladder at the Leesville Dam every year to spawn. American Bald Eagles nest in Salmon Cove from December through March w; nile many y,ung birds spend the entire year within two miles of Connecticut Yankee "' Long term impacts of tritium on local rare species and spawning salmon, amounts of tritium in the fishes' tissue, amounts of liquid waste to be discharged during decommissioning, or whether there are alternatives to such discharges, need to
' GEIS, p. ix.
2 GEIS, p. x.
' lbid.
- Guuu, M., "Saving CY's Land," The Herald Press, January '9,1997.
- Aj]ldust ofDr. M. Resnikoff Heddam Neck case Psge S 09/30/97 be investigated prior to CYAPCo being allowed to stan decommissioning the Haddam Neck facility. Without a detailed decommissioning plan there is no way to assure CYAPCo's compliance wit.'. the GEIS.
(b) In certain tespects, the GEIS itselfis inadequate, and does not support the kind of actions CYAPCo is likely to take in the course of decommissioning the Haddam Neck reactor. The following are some examples of the inadequacy of the GEIS:
- i. Inhalation of " hot particles." The potential dose due to inhalation of " hot particles" is not included in the GEIS's estimates. "' Hot particles' are small particles of radioactive material with a high specific activity."8 Hot particles are often fragments ofirradiated fuel and are present at reactors, such as Yankee Rowe, San Onofre, and Haddam Neck, where fuel rods have been damaged. The beta radiation is generally high. Small specks can produce a major dose in a short time period. Hot Particles are an important issue.
Given Haddam Neck's history of prolonged operation with leaking fuel, the reactor is highly contaminated with transuranics and fuel particles. Doses frorn these hot particles are not considered in the GEIS, and may have represented significant undocumented exposures during the Yankee Rowe decommissioning, particularly during cutting of highly radioactive porticns of the reactor.
ii. Off site waste processing. Processing of Haddam Neck reactor waste off-site effectively lowers the occupational doses at the Haddam Neck plant. For this reason, occupational doses at these prceessing plants should be counted as decommissioning doses. Contaminated waste supposedly will be sent to processing plants run by SEO (Oak Ridge, Tennessee), HAKE (Memphis, Tennessee), and American Ecology Recycling Center (Oak Ridge, Tennessee) iii. Transportation dose. The 500 or so shipments of radioactive waste leaving Haddam Neck will be traveling on narrow back roads close to homes and children waiting at bus stops or nearby the roads. An updated transportation assessment which accounts for these site-specific factors, and accounts for the increased risk to children is absolutely necessary. The GEIS analysis of transportation doses, adopted by CYAPCo, is taken without change from NUREG/CR-0130 That repon based on a totally out-of-date Atomic Energy Commission 1972 transportation report, WASH-1238.' Most modern analyses of transportation related doses use the computer code RADTRAN4. Sandia Laboratories first developed RADTRAN for the NRC, in support of the transportation EIS, NUREG 0170.'
Sandia continues to refine 5 NRC, IE Information Notice No. 86 23, " Excessive Skin Exposures Due to Contammauon with liot Particles," Apnl 9,1986.
- AEC, Environmental Survey of Transportanon ofRadioactive Matenals to andfrom Nuclear Power Plants, WASil 1238, Decesr 1972.
' NRC, Anal EnytronmentalSntement on the Transportation ofRadioactive Matenal by Air and other Moder, NUREG4170, December 1977.
~_.
Af]Idmit ofDr. M Resmkoff Haddam Neck case Page 9 09/30/97 RADTRAN for the DOE.' RADTRAN4 predicts a much higher dose to the public than WASH 1238. In particular, doses are predicted to be much higher when waste shipment haulers pause at rest stops, as the public is closer to the radioactive waste containers at such times.
iv. Soil contamination. CYAPCo has not yet determined the full extent of soil, asphalt and cement that has to be removed and shipped in order to reduce TEDE' exposures to 15 mrem /y above background, the NRC's proposed site release criteria.
GEIS estimates on occupational exposures and costs do not include this task. This should be the subject of a site-specific EIS, CYAPCo needs to conduct a full site characterization and prepare a site characterization report.
- v. Greater than class C waste. The GEIS never assumed that licensees would dispose of greater than class C waste in a near surface landfill.
(c) The bottom line of these inadequacies of the GEIS is that the r mtial environmental impacts, particularly radiation exposures to the public and workers, will be greater than estimated in the GEIS, yet the NRC's decommissioning rules provide no opportunity to conect the record and seek a remedy. Worker and public radiation exposures may be higher than anticipated in the GEIS, yet the NRC eliminated any meaningful opportunity to question the actual level of exposures.
- 17. The new decommissioning rule does not require adequate NRC oversight of the decommissioning process, having ceded this to the licensee under 50 59 -this raises serious issues of public health and safety--
(a) In the Yankee Rowe case, an inspector discovered that steam generator removal implicated 50.59 as a previously unreviewed safety issue--an "outside design basis" accident. NRC, however, never acted on the issue even though it was brought to their attention by their own statT. At Haddam Neck, the removal of steam generators or the reactor vessel may also involve an unreviewed safety question.
But we cannot definitively know without the opportunity to question the PSDAR in an adjudicatory-type hearing process.
Such a hearing is not allowed under the current decommissioning mles.
(b) The issue of disposing of greater than class C waste in the reactor vessel calls for an emironmental and safety analysis which the current decommissioning mies do not require. According to NRC regulations,10 CFR Part 61, greater than class C waste must be treated as high level waste. These internals will remain radioactive and hazardous for tens of thousands of years because of the presence of niobium-94, nickel 59 and nickel-63.
The direct radiation readings will exceed allowable
' Neuhauser, K and FL Kanipe, RADTRAN,t: Volume J. User Guide, Sandia National Laboratories, January 1992.
' TEDE (Tota! Effective Dose Equivalent) is the sum of deep dose equivalent and the committed etTective dose equivalent.
l
' Affidavsr ofDr. M Re.tnako]J Haddam Neck case Page10 09/30/97 Ct oanission levels for tens of thousands of years. According to NRC rules, greater than class C waste "must be disposed ofin a geologic repository unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are approved by the Commission." Yet, according to its PSDAR, CYAPCo intends to include these waste within the reactor vessel and ship them down to the radioactive landfill in Barnwell, South Carolina.
- 13. This current rule is not like any other NRC rule I have reviewed. In order to avoid a license amendment, and, thus, public hearings on the decommissioning plan, the NRC has obliterated the license distinction between operating a nuclear power reactor facility and tearing it apart.
This is utterly unprecedented and irrational. The Connecticut nuclear reactors have been plagued by problems, not the least of which is inadequate FSARs. Because staff levels, competence and the morale of nuclear plant workers decline when reactor: cea e operating, if anything, operators, such as Northeast Utilities and CYAPCo, need much higher levels of NRC oversight during the decommissioning process than the NRC conducted during routine operations.
- 19. In my professional opinion: (1) the 1988 GEIS on decommishning prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policv Act does not support the new deconunissioning rule and the activities it permits; (2) the rules do not adequately protect the public health and safety because they essentially turn over the regulatory process to the licensees; (3) the rules do not provide adequate protection of public health and safety by failing to require an adequate decommissioning plan in scope or detail; (4) the NRC has taken the final step of complete irrationality by declaring under this rule that there is no difference in the license to operate a nuclear power reactor for 30 years and the license to shut it down, disassemble it, and remove highly contaminated radioactive structures and components--just as was done under the Component Removal Project at Yankee-Rowe. As a professional on radioactive waste issues for the past 23 years, I see no reason for eliminating the distinction between " operating" and "disasse'.nbling" a nuclear power reactor, other than the NRC's attempt to speed up the decommissioning process for its licensees by shutting the public out of thejrocess.
l SO SWORN:
/# Mefk/[
Marvin Resnikoff
///
STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF $l~ Llnk ss.
On this 3c day of b,1 L.
1997, the above named Marvin Resnikoff appeared before me and swore under penalty of perjury that the above affidavit is true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
'(
( I N-Ac@s SEAL Nota y Public--my commissien expires on #
4 '/ /
l CLAUDETTE TENnlASSEE
[
Notary Pubhc, State of New Yorti No. 314974919 Commission Exoires Nov 26,19.p 7 i
Ouelified en New York County C
l l
Exhibit A. Resume of Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D.
Dr. 51arvin Resnikoffis Senior Associate at Radioactive Waste hianagement Associates and is an international consultant on radioactive waste management dues. He is Principal hianager at Associates and is Project Director for risk assessment studies on radioactive waste facilities and transportation of radioactive materials. Dr. Resnikoff has concentrated exclusively on mdioactive unste issues since 1974. He has conducted studies on the remediation and closure of the leaking Maxey Flats, Kentucky radioactive landfill for Sfaxey Flats Concemed Citizens, Inc.
under a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Wayne and hfaywood, New Jersey thorium Superfund sites and on proposed low 4evel radioactive waste facilities at hfartinsville
(!!!inois), Boyd County (Nebraska), Wah-Count >forth Carolina), Ward Valley (Califomia) and Hudspeth County (Texas). He has con &:ted studies on transportation accident risks and probabilities for the State of Nevada and dose reconstruction studies of oil pipe cleaners in Mississippi and Louisiana, residents of Canon City, Colorado near a former uranium mill, residents of West Chicago, Illinois near a former thorium processing plant, and former workers at a thorium processing facility in Mapvood, New Jersey. In West Chicago he calcuhted exposures and riska due to thorium contanunation and served as an expert witness for plaintiffs A Muzzey, S Bryan, D Schroeder and assisted counsel for plaintiffs KL West and KA West. He also evaluated radiation exposures and risks in worker corr ensation cases invohing G Boeni and M Talitsch, former workers at Maywood Chemical W.s thorium processing plant.
In Canada, he has conducted studies on behalf of the Coalition of Emironmental Groups and Northwatch for hearings before the Ontario Emironmental Assessment Board on issues invohing radioactive waste in the nuclear fuel cycle and Elliot Lake tailings ar.d the Interchurch Uranium Coalition in Environmental Impact Statement hearings before a Federal panel regarding the environmental impact of uranium mining in Northern Saskatchewan. He has also worked on behalf of the Morningside Heights Consortium regarding radium-contaminated soil in MMvern and on hehalf of North-stch regarding decommissioning the E!!ict Lake tailings area before a FEARO panel. More recently he completed a study for Concemed Citizens of Manitoba regarding transportation ofirradiated fuel to a Canadian high level waste repository.
He was formerly Research Director of the Radioactive Waste Campaign, a public interest organization conducting research and public education on the radioactive waste issue. His duties with the Campaign included directing the res: arch program on low-level commercial and military waste and irradiated nuclear fuel transportation, writing articles, fact sheets and reports, for-mutating policy and networking with numerous emironmental and public interest organizations and the media. He is author of the Campaign's book on " low-level" waste, Ltving Withour Landfills, and co-author of the Campaigt.'s book, Deadly Defense, A Citt:en Guide to Afilitary Land,611s Between 1981 and 1983, Dr. Resnikoff was a Project Director at the Council on Economic Priorities, a New York-based non-profit research organization, where he authored the 390-page study. The Next Nuclear Gamble. Transportanon andStorage ofNuclear Waste. De CEP study details the hazard of transporting irradiated nuclear fuel and outlines safer options.
In February 1976, assisted by four engineering students at State University of New York at Buffalo, Dr. Resnikoff authored a paper which changed the direction of power reactor decommissioning in the United States. His paper showed that power reactors could not be entombed for long enough periods to allow the radioactivity to decay to safe enough levels for umestricted release. He presence oflong4ived radionuclides meant that large volumes of dismantled reactors would still have to go to lowbel waste disposal facility. He served as technical consultant and witness for Citizen Awareness Network in ASLB proceedings on decommissioning the Yankee-Rour reactor. He has more recently served as a technical consultant
L M Resnik:fT Page 2 ExhibitA on irradiated fuel storage facilities for the Palisades, Prairie Island and Point Beach nuclear reactors, testifying at hearings before Pthhc Service Commissions and the courts.
Dr. Resnikoffis an international expert in nuclear waste management, and has testified eften before State Legislatures and the U.S. Congress. He has extensively inve',tigated the safety of the West Valley, New York and Ban 4well, South Carolina nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities.
His paper on reprocessing economics (Environment, July / August,1975) was the Srst to show the marginal economics of recycling plutonium. He completed a more detailed study on the same subject for the Environmental Protection Agency, " Cost / Benefits of U/Pu Recycle," in 1983. His paper on deconunissioning nuclear reactors (Envimament, December,1976) was the first to show that reactors would remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
Dr. Resnikoff has prepared reports on incineration of radioactive materials, transportathn ofirradiated fuel and pluonium, reprocessing, and management oflow-level radioactive waste. He has served as an expert witness in state and federal court cases and agency proceedings. He has served as a consultant to the State of Kansu on low-level waste management, to the Town of Wayne, New Jersey, in reviewing the cleanup of a local thorium waste dump, to WARD on disposal of radium wates in Vernon, New Jersey, to the Southwest Research and Information Center and New Mexico Attomey General on shipments of plutonium-contarmnated waste to the WIPP facility in New Mexico and the State of Utah on nuclear fuel transport. He has served as a consultant to the New York Attomey General on air shipments of plutonium through New York's Kennaly Aimort, and transport ofirradiated fuel through New York City, and to the Illinois Attomey General on the expansion of the spent fuel ponts at the Morris Operation and the Zion reactor, to the Idaho Attomey General on the transportation ofirradiated submarine fuct to the INEL facility la Idaho and to the Alaska Attomey General on shipments of plutonium through Alaska. He was an invited speaker at the 1976 Canadian meeting of the Amencan Nucleer Society to discuss the risk of transporting plutonium by air. As part of an international team of.xperts for the State ofIower Saxony, the Gorieben International Review, he reviewed the plans of the nuclear industry to locate a reprocessirig and waste disposal operation at Gorleben, West Germany.
He presented evidence at the Sizewell B Iquiry on behalf of the Town and Country Planning Association'(England) on transporting nuclear fuel through London. In July and August 1989, he was an imited guest of Japrese public interest groups, Fishermen's Cooperatives and the Japanese Congress Against A-and H-Bombs (Gensuikin).
Between 1974 and 1981, he was a lecturer at Rachel Carson College, an unde; graduate environmental studies division of the State University of New York at Buffalo, where se taught energy and environmental courses. He years 1975-1977 he also worked for the New York Public Interest Group (NYPIRG).
In 1973, Dr. desnikoff was a Fulbright lecturer in particle physics at the Universidad de Chile in Santiago, Chile. From 1967 to 1973, he was an Assistant Professor of Physics at the State University of New Yor.c at Buffalo. He has wri"cn numerous papers in particle physics, under grants from the National Science Foundation. He is a 1965 graduate of the University of Michigan with a Doctor of Philosophy in Theoretical Physics, specializing in group theory and particle physics.
1 I
Il
L c #.-
' M Resnikoff:
. Page 3
+
~
c
. ExhibitA-
. Dr. Marvin Resnikoff 4
Radioactive Waste Management Associates 526 West 26th Street, Room 517 241 W.109* St, Apt. 2A E
New York, NY 10001 New York, NY 10025 (212)620-0526 FAX (212)620-0518 (212) 663-7117 EXPERIENCE:
- April 1989 - present Senior Associate, Radioactive Waste Management Associates, management of consulting firm focused on radioactive waste isrues, evaluation of nuclear transportation and military and commercial radioactive waste disposal facilities.
~
1978 - 1981; 1983 - A 3ril 1989 Research Director, Radioactive Waste Campaign, directec. research program for Campaign, including research for all fact sheets and the two books, Living Without Landfills, and Deadly Defense.
The fact sheets dealt with low-level radioactive waste landfills, mcmeration of radioactive waste, transportation of high-level waste and decommissioning of nuclear reactors. Responsible fcr fund raising, budget preparation and project management <
1981 - 1983 Project Director, Council on Economic Priorities, directed project which produced the re? ort The Next Nuclear Gamble, on transportation and l
storege of high-evel waste.
1974 - 1981 Instructor, Rachel Carson College, State University ofNew York at Buffalo, taught classes on energy and the environment, and conducted research into the economics of recycling of plutonium from irradiated fuel under a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.
1975 - 1976 Project Coordinator, SUNY at Buffalo, New York Public Interest Research Group, assisted students on research projects, including project on waste from decommissiordng nuclear reactor.
1973 Fulbright Fellowship at the Univmidad de Chile, conducting research in elementarj particle physics, 1967 - 1972 Assistant Professor of Physics, SUNY at ButTalo, conducted research in elementary particle physics and taught range ofgraduate and undergraduate physics courses.
1965 - 1967 Research Associate, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, conducted research into elementary particle physics.
EDUCATION University ofMichigan PhD in Physics, June 1965 Ann Arbor, Michigan M.S. in Physics, Jan 1962 B.A. in Physics / Math, June 1959 d
\\
o Exhibit B. Radioactive Waste Management Associates Radioactive Waste hianagement Associates is an independent consulting firm established April 1989 to assist state and local governments and citizen organizations in dealing with wute manugement issues. We are a team of scientists, economists and engineers who carefully evaluate the impact and conduct risk assessmenis of proposed and extant radioactive waste facilities. We perform engineering and economic analyses oflow level waste facilities, develop cost-based waste disposal pricing systems, and e' >
g impacts of transporting radioactive waste and clean-up options on the public h the environment. As seen below, we have extensive experience in working w
= x state governments and citizen organizations. We have an extensive library of 3 mau on low-level waste issues. hiany of us have facility in FORTRAN programming, a1 for the computer models employed in risk assessments.
In Canada, Associates has conducted studies on behalf of the Coalition of Environmental Groups and Northwatch for hearings before the Ontario Environmental Assessment Board on issues involving radioactive waste in the nuclear fuel cycle and Elliot Lake tailings and the Interchurch Uranium Coalition in Environmental Impact Statement hearings before a Federal panel regarding the uranium mining in Northern Saskatchewan.
We are also working on behalf of the hforningside Heights Consortium regarding the remediation of radium-cor wainated wastes in hfalvern.
Our recent clients inc!ude the following:
Orranization Location Prolect ACES C Paso, TX Proposed LLW Facility, Hudspeth County Algoma-hfanitoulin Nm-lear Gore Bay, Ontario Elliot Lake uranium tailings Awarenesa decommissioning Boyd County Local hionitoring Butte, Nebraska Emironmental Impact of Proposed LLW Committee Facility Case family, Stuart Smith, Atty New Orleans, LA Dose reconstruction: oil field piping Chatham County PSLAC Pittsboro, NC Proposed SE Compact LLW Facility Citizen Awareness Network Rowe, htA Decommissioning Yankee-Rowe reactor Citizens Concerned Concord, htA Remediation of U basin at Nhti about Nhil Concemed Citizens htarshall, IL Proposed LLW Facility,111 Siting of Clark County Commission Hearings Concerned Citizens hiaywood, "1 RI/FS proceedings re. hfa> wood thorium Coalition of 5!mironmental Toronto, Ontario Ontario Emironmental Assessment Groups Doa-d Hearings Committee to Bridge the Gap Los Angeles, CA Proposed Ward Valley LLW facility
. =
M RemukEK i
Exhibit B P3C 2
~
_ Dodge far ily, R Lorenz, Atty.
Celo Sptgs, CO Dose reconstruction: Cotter U mill Don't Wame Michigan -
Petoskey, MI
- Decommissioning Big Rock Point reactor.
Greenpeace -
Washington, D.C.-
on plutonium ship Akatsuki Maru Report on potential health effects, fire -
- Hanford Downwinders; R Haber -- Eugene, OR Federal Court prcceedings; reprocessing plant releases Idaho AttorneyGeneral Boise, Idaho Federal Court proceedings re. impact of transportation of sub fuel to Idaho Inter Church Uranium Coalition Saskatoon, Sask.
EIS Proceedings re. U mining in Northern Saskatchewan before Federal Panel Kennedy y SC Edison; S Smith Los Angeles, CA Federal court proceeding re. " hot partic!c
inhalation Lake Michigan Federation Wisansin Proposed irradiated fuel storage at Point Beach and Palisades reactors Marina Owners, Watts Bar Knoxville, Tennessee Federal Court proceedings, potential risk Reservoir, Wm Vines, Atty from Oak Ridge releases Maxey Flats Concerned
- Flemingsburg, KY RI/FS Proceeding on Maxey Flats Citizens -
landfil' Morningside Heights Consortium Scarborough, Ont.
Remediation of Malvern contaminated soil Northwatch Coalition North Bay, OH Ontario Emironmental Assessment Board Hearings Novak Farms Toxic Comm McDonough, NY RI/FS Proceeding on Novak Farms dump New Mexico Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Pu-transport Risk Assessment Nuclear Waste Project Office Carson Cry, NV Transport Cask Vulnerability State of Nevada Radioactive Waste Campaign Warwick, NY Resiew Radiac SAR Sioux Tribal Council Welch, MN Irradiated Fuel Storage /MRS at Prairie Island Towns of East Windsor, Connecticut Procosed LLRW Facility Ellington and S. Windsor Town of Wayne New Jersey Remediation of Rare Earth facility W Chicago; T Trinley, Atty Illinois r'ersonal injury cases re. KMCC thorium waste Wyoming Minerals Corp.
B: uni, TX Occupational exposures to uranium selution i
A Schirrmeister, Atty mining workers Wyoming Minerals Corp.
53runi, TX Property damage due to uranium solution immng s 1.
r M Resnikoff Exhibit B page 3 RWMA Publications 1991/1996 RWMA, White Paper #1, Sources ofLow-Level Waste in Connecticut, prepared on behalf of the Towns of East Windsor, Ellington and South Windsor, September 30,1991.
RWMA. White Papcr #2, Low-Level Waste Transportation in Connecticut, prepared on behalf of the Towns of East Windsor, Ellington and South Windsor, October 2,1991.
RWMA, White Paper #3, Statement by Dr. Marvin Resnikoffon Chem-Nuclear, prepared on behalf of the Towns of East Windsor, Ellington and South Windsor, October 29,1991.
RWMA, White Paper #4, Leakage From Existing ' Low Level' Waste DisposalFacilities, prepared on behalf of the Towns of East Windsor, Ellington and South W' dsor, January m
6,1992.
Marvin Resnikoff and Anne Vanrenterghem, Preliminary Review of US Ecology Safety Analysis Report, ProposedBoyd County, Nebraska Low-Level Waste Facility, prepared on behalf of the Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee, February 2,1992.
Marvin Resnikoff, Radon Releasesfrom Uranium Tailings andProjectedHealth Effects, prepared on behalf ofNorthwatch Coalition, February 17,1992.
RWMA, White Paper #5, Storage ofLow-Level Radioactive Waste, prepared on behalf of the Towns of East Windsor, Ellington and South Windsor, February 19,1992.
Marvin Resnikoff, Scope: McArthur River and Cigar Lake Projects, Memo to Inter Church Uranium Council, February 27,1992.
Richard Leigh, Marvin ResnikofTand Anne Vanrenterghem, Environmentallmpacts of Elliot Lake Mill Tailings, prepared on behalf of Northwatch Coalition, March 30,1992.
Marvin Resnikoff, Canadian High-Level Waste Repository Costs, Memo to David Poch and David Argue, Coalition of Environmental Groups, April 2,1992.
Minard Hamilton, Low Level Waste Facilities in Canada and the U.S., prepared on behalf ofNorthwatch Coalition, April 22,1992.
Marvin ResnikofT, Comment on Midwest Joint Venture EIS, Memo to Inter Church Uranium Council, April 23,1992.
B enimdn A. Goldman, Review of Environmental Report Social and Economic Impact Assessments: ProposedLow-LevelRadioactive Waste DisposalFacility, prepared on behalf of Northwatch Coalition, June 25,1992.
,4
-o-EM Rasmkoff -
Exhibit B -
Page 4 Lee DiTullio and Matvin Resnikoff, Review ofSafety Analysis Report Part 1: Geology, H)& ology Proposed Low-Level Waste Facility Butte, Nebraska, prepared on behalf af the Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee, June 29,1992.
Marvin Resnikoff, Mythbuster#8, " Low-Level" Radioactive Waste, for Safe Energy Communications Council, Summer 1992.
~
P Marvin ResnikoiT, Comments on Final Guidelinesfor the Preparation ofan EnvironmentalImpact Statement on the Nuclear Fuel Warte Management and Disposal.'
Concept, July 22,1992.
Matvin Resnikoff, NMI's ProposedHydromet Project, Meme to Judy Scotnicki, Concerned Citizens of Concord, July 29,1992.
Matvin Resnikoff and Lee DiTullio, Review ofSafety Analysis Report Part 2: Risk i.
Assessment ProposedLow-Level Waste Facility Butte, Nebraska, prepared on behalf af the Boyd County Local Monitoring Committee, August 7,1992.
RWMA, Comments on McClean Lake Project EIS, prepared on behalf of the Inter-Uranium Coalition, June 30,1992.
Lee DiTullio and Karen Levine, Comments on CluffLake EIS, prepared on behalf of the Inter-Church Uranium Coalition, July 20,1992.
Marvin ResnikofT, Pluonium Ship AkatsukiMaru Consequences ofFire at the Pearl Harbor NavalShipyard, prepared on behalf of Greenpeace, August 24,1992.
Matvin Resnikoff, Waste Impacts of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, prepared on behalf of Coalition ofEnvironmental Groups, November 1992.
Marvin Resnikoff, Declarations on the safety of shipping naval fuel from shipyards to Idaho before the Federal District Court, prepared on behalf of the Idaho Attorney General, March 1993.
Marvin Resnikoff, Declaration on the safety of the VSC-24 storage cask before the I-
}
Federal District Court on behalf of the Lake Michigan Federation, May 1993.
1 Marvin Resnikoff, Talk at a Town Meeting in Grand Rapids, Michigan, June 22, regarding the safety of the VSC-24 storage container at the Palisades reactor.
Marvin Resnikoff, Reports to two environmental assestment panels reviewing the environmentalimpact of proposed mining operations in Northern Saskatchewan, prepared on behalf of the Interchurch Uranium Coalition, May 12 and June 14, 1993.
P l
l
~
i -. _.. _ ~
, O.
. M Rasmksff Page 5 Exhibit B r
- Marvin Resnikoff, Presentation before the Ohio Govemor's Blue Ribbon Committee on siting a low-level waste facility in Ohio for the Midwest Compact, July 1993. '
- Marvin Resnikoff, Report on the safety of processing and storing radium-contaminated _
wastes in the Tapscott district of Scarborough, Toronto, prepared on behalf of the Coalition Against Radioactive Tapscott, November 1,1993.
Marvin Resnikoff, Remarks before the Department of Energy meeting on the Multi-Purpose Canister, _ Washington, D.C., November 16,1993.
Marvin Resnikoff, Report on the scoping guidelines for production of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for decommissioning of the Elliot Lake uranium tailings and report on the draft EIS by Rio Algom for the decommissioning of Quirk and Panel tailings, Elliot Lake, prepared on behalf of Algoma-Manitoulin Nuclear Awareness, December 15,1993.
Resnikoff, M and Haaker, R, " Estimated Radiation Dose received by James E Case, et al, during Pipe De-scaling Operations at Brookhaven, Mississippi," report prepared in the case Case v. Chevron, January 23,1994.
c Radioactive Waste Management Associates, " Soil Separation: What It Means For Wayne," report pr: pared for the Town of Wayne, New Jersey, May 24,1994.
Resnikoff, M and Fuchsman, P, " Comments on the Department of Energy's Baseline Risk Assessment for the Wayne Site, Wayne, New Jersey, January 1994," May 31,1994.
Resnikoff, M, " Radiation Dose Exposures Received by William Davis During Lens Polishing Operation," repon prepared for the case Davis v Transelco et al, July 1,1994.
Leigh, RL and Resnikoff, M, " Estimated Exposure to Radiation and Metals Received by Lincoln Park Residents from Cotter Mill Operations," report prepared for the case J Dodge et alv. Commonwealth Edison, July 1,1994.
Resnikoff, M, Affidavit prepared on behalf of plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District Of Tenr.essee at Knoxville, Euchee Marina & Campground, Inc. et al, plaintiffs, v Union Carbide Corporation, et al, defendants, July 15,1994 Resnikoff, M and Knowlton, K, " Preliminary Critique of the Safety Analysis Report, Wake /Chatham Proposed Low-Level Waste Facility," report prepared for the Chatham County Preferred Site Local Advisory Committee, July 19,1994.
Resnikoff, M, Leigh, RL and Fuchsman, P, " Comments on the Department of Energy's Baseline Risk Assessment for the Maywood Site, Maywood, New Jersey, April 1993,"
July 27,1994
4 O
M Resnikoff Page 6 Exhibit B Resnikoff, M, "Prefiled Testimony Of Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D. On Behalf of Lake Michigan Federation, before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, in the case of Application of Wisconsin Electric Power Company for Authority to Constmet and Place in Operation an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility Utilizing Dry Cask Storage Technology at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Located in the Town of Two Creeks, Manitowc; County, September 11,1994. Also Rebuttal Testimony, dated September 27, 1994 and Supplemental Testimony, dated October 3,1994.
Resnikoff, M, affidavit prepared on behalf of plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts, Citizens Awareness Network, Inc., plaintiff, v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission, defer. dant, October 4,1994.
Resnikoff, M, affidavit in opposition to motion of Westinghouse for summaryjudgment, prepared on beha!f of plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Western District Of Washington at Yakima, in re Hanford Nuclear Reservation, October 15,1994 RWMA, " Comments on proposed mle change: radiation standards for low-level waste facilities," January 9,1995.
Resnikoff, M, " Nuclear waste transportation and the role of the public, Las Vegas, Nevada: unresolved safety issues," February 1,1995.
Resnikoff, M, " Ohio low level waste legislation," Lobby Day, Ohio Environmental Council Border Opposes Nuclear Dump," February 22,1995.
Fuchsman/P, Hamilton, M, Knowlton, K, Levine, K and Resnikoff, M, " Wayne Health Survey," prepared for the Town of Wayne, April,1995.
Knowlton, K and Resnikiff, M, "A review of the phase II field investigation and financial resources of NMI," report prepared for CREW, May 22,1995.
Resnikoff, M, Knowlton, K and Fuchsman, P, " Low-level waste transportation in Texas,"
prepared for Alert Citizens for Environmental Safety, June 29,1995.
Resnikoff, M and Knowlton, K, " Comments on ' Engineering evaluation / cost analysis for the cleanup of residential and municipal vicinity properties at the Maywood site, Bergen County, New Jersey,'" on behalf of Concerned Citizens of Maywood, August 11,1995.
Resnikoff, M, Fuchsman, P and Knowlton, K, " Low-level waste transportation in North Carolina," prepared for the Chatham County Preferred Site Local Advisory Committee, August 13,1995.
Edelman, G and Fuchsman, P, " Business survey on the Socioeconomic impact of the low-level radioactive waste facility proposed for North Carolina," prepared for Chatham County, August, 16,1995
s M Resnikoff page 7 Exhibit B l
Re;nikoff, M, Knowlton, K and Fuchsman, P, " Comments on environmental impact statements fer the Cigar Lake and Midwest Joint Ventures proposals," prepared for the Saskatchewan Uranium Coalition, October, 27,1995, Knowlton, K, Resnikoff, M and Fuchsman, P, " Review of the license application for the Proposed LLRW facility near Sierra Blanca, Texas," prepared for Alert Citizens for Environmental Safety," November 30,1995.
Resnikoff, M," Scoping Comments for the Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye, County, Nevada, December 1,1995.
Resnikoff, M, " Calculation of Radiation Exposures Received by Donald A. Schroeder, West Chicago, Illinois." Prepared for case Schroeder v Kerr-McGee, Februa;y 21,1996.
Resnikoff, M, K Knowlton, and K Island, " Comments on Emironmental Impact Statement for the McArthur River Proposal," prepared for Saskatchewan Uranium Coalition, March 1,1996.
Resnikoff, M, K Knowlton, P Fuchsman, and K Island, " Site Suitability and Impact of Proposed Radioactive Waste Facility, Wake /Chatham Counties, ' North Carolina," prepared for Chatham County Preferred Site Local Advisory Committee, March 20,1996.
Resnikoff, M, " Mississippi Oil and Gas Board Proposed Rule 69: Control of 0ilfield NORM," March 25,1996.
Resnikoff, M, "Before the Illinois LLRW Task Group: Comments on Revised Siting Criteria," May 15,1996.
Resnikoff, M, " Decommissioning ofBig Rock Point," prepared for Don't Waste Michigan
- Northern Chapter, July 1996.
Resnikoff, M, " Preliminary Report: Occupational Exposures for Plaintiffs Garza and Depain from Uranium Solution Mining Activities, Bruni, Texas" July 31,1996.
RWMA, " Comments on the IRP Remedial Design Work Plan, Maxey Flats, Kentucky,"
prepared for Maxey Flats Concerned Citizens, August 2,1996.
e.
M Resnikoff PageS Exisbit B s
Knowlton K, and M ResnikotT," Review of the Liceru Application for the Proposed LLRW Facility Near Sierra Blanca, Texas," prepared for Sierra Blanca Legal Defense Fund, updated August 14,1996, (original November 30,1995).
Resnikoff, M, " Radiation Dose Exposure Received by Milt Vercher During Oil Pipe Cleaning Operations," September 27,1996.
)
Resnikoff, M, and K Knowlton, " Comments on the Department of Energy's Draft Feasibility Study and Dran Record of Decision for the Wayne, New Jersey Site," October 15,1996.
Knowlton, K, M Medina, and M Resnikoff, " Comments on Fall 1996 Addendums to JEB Pit Tailings Disposal Plans," prepared on the behalf of the Saskatchewan Uranium Coalition, December 2,1996.
bb C.
From Science magazine.
Isotooes the Nuc_ ear Inc ustry Over_oorec The problem of what to do with worn out nuclear power will therefore be amad long ader cobalt 40 has decayed to plants has ? den on an important new dimension in the past few insignificance, giving cJradiation well above permitted levels.
years, as evidence has come to light that some reactor Resnikoff recalls that he was imtially anxious about componenta may remain radioactive for thousands of years after a releasing his calculations because "they went against the whole plant is shut down. The conventional wisdom had previously mindset at the time." The nuclear industry was then saying that it been that radiation !crets would dee!!ce to insignificance aner a reactor is entombed for 180 years, it will cool down to a safe several decades
!cvel, he pointed out. Nevertheless, he published a press release
- the culprits are very long lived isotopes of nickel and challenging the industry's plans. Resnikoff sep that his niobium, wldch are formed as the result of bombardment by csIculations were vigorously attacked by the industry, but most neutrons. The formation of these isotopes was overlooked by the studies since then have acknowledged the problem with nickel-nuclear industry until the late 1970, when the problem was
- 59. "It is an example of what happens when you have thousands brougnt to pvbiic attenli;n largely as the result of work by of engineen all moving in one directi:m, and a handful of outside undergraduate students.
critics takes a look at their work," ResnikofTclaims.
Their discovery nay have an important impact on A year later, a second long-lived isotope, niobium-94 was regulation: pveming the decommissioning of nuclau plants. In identified as a potential problem in i.'Tadiated reactor particular, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may components. Agam, the discovery came from researchers outside forbid utdities to entomb reactors in concrete a.v! leave them m the nuclear industry.
place-an option that was long considered the cheapest way of Robert Pohl, a professor of physics at Cornett University, dealing with the problem. Insteed, the NRC staff is considering said that he dxided, in the light of Resniketrs findings, to see requiring that reactors be dismantled relatively soon aaer they whether there are any hazardous activation products among trace are shut down and that the radioactive waste be shipped to a elements in steel. An undergraduate student, John Stephens, disposal site (see accompanying story). Components containing looked through data on radioactive isotopes and flagged niobium.
the long lived isotopes may even have to be consigned to a a 91 as a potential problem. It decays with a halflife of 20,300 geological repository when one is eventually established.
years, enutting very energetic gamma rays. A literature seuch When a reactor is first shut down, the pressure vessel and mdicated that niobium is added to some steels to inhibit other components close to the core are intensely radioactive, cracking, and that it is a trace constituent in stainless steel. Pohl largely because of the presence of cobalt 40. This isotope is and Stephens published their findings in.Wclear Engmeering formed when atoms of cobalt, a constituent of most steels, are hit andDmgn in 1978.
by neutrons from fission reactMns in the reactor fuel. Because "Nobody m the nuclear business knew of the problem at the cobalt 40 has a halflife of 5.27 years, the radioactivity time," says Poht It is now generally accepted, however. A 1980 dunmishes relatively quickly. ARer a century, the amount of repat by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories indicates, for cobalt 40 will have dropped by a factor of about one million.
example, that the decay of niobium-94 will dominate the Although it has a! Aays been known that isotopes of other radiation dose nte from irradiated steel about 70 years aRer a elements would be formed by neutron bombard.nent, it was reactor is shut down.
thought that they quid be preser.1 in such tiny quantities that An environmental impact statement on reactor they would contnbute negligible amounts of radioactivity. Th.us, decommissioning, published last year by the NRC, indicates that er.ce the cobalt 40 had decayed, the reactor would be relatively the dose rate from niobium-94 in reactor components will be harmless. In February 1976, however, Marvin ResmkofT, a about 17,000 rems per year if the reactor is operated for 30 to 40 phyneist then on the statT of the New York Public Interest years. That from nickel-59 will be about 300 rems per year.
Research Group, went public with calculations indicating that "ihese dose levels are substantially above acceptable restdual nickel 59 may pose a long term rediation problem.
radioactivity levels," the statement notes. Entombing a disused ResnikofT says that he and four undergraduate students reactor in concrete would thus be acceptable only if the long-realized that nickel-59 may cause dilliculties when they looked at lived isotopes were removed or if the integrity of the entombing data on the dismantling of the Elk River reactor, a small power structure could be maintained fo. thousands of years, the study plant in Minnesota that was shut down in 1968 aaer only 4 years concludes.
of operation. Although only trace amounts of nickel 59 were Anec the problems with nickel 59 and niobium-94 were i
present in Elk River componente, Resniko(T calculated that discovered, the NRC commissioned a study to see whether any signaticant quantities would be formed in a large power reactor other potential activation products may cause trouble. "So far, we dunng 30 years of operation.
haven't identified any on the scale of those two," says Donald Nickel 59 is potentially important because, although it Calkms, NRC's manage of decommissioning programs.- Colin contributes only a tiny fractwn of the radiation inventory when a Norman.
reactor is shut down, it has a halflife of about 80,000 years. It 22 JANUARY 19s2 377
Exhibit D. Court Proceedings Case Official Title, Case #,
PlaintiffAttorney Nature of case Court Boeni v Stepan Chemical George L. Boeni v.
David Tykulsker Worker's comp; thorium i
Stepan Chemical Co.;
Ball, Livingston &
processing plant heard before Div. Of Tykulsker Worker's Compensation, 108 Washington St.
Hackensack, NJ Newark, NJ 07102 (201)622-4545 Case v Chevron James Edward Case et Stuart Smith Dose reconstruction: oil al. v. Chevron USA, Inc.
Sacks & Smith pipe scale et al.; USDC; Southern 1615 Poydras St.'
Miss.; Jackson District; Suite 860 Case #J92-0269(W)(N)
New Orleans, LA 70112 (504)593-9600 Davis v Transelco Stuart Smith Thorium lens polishing -
Sacks & Smith compound; occupational 1615 t'oydras St.
exposure Suite 800 New Odeans, LA 70112 (504)693-9600 Dodge v Comm Edison Joseph Dodge et al. v.
Rebecca Lorenz Dose reconstruction; The Cotter Corporation Melat, Pressman, Ezell &
Cotter U mill and Commonwealth Higbie Edison Co.; USDC; 711 South Tejon St.
District of Colorado; Civil Colorado prings, CO, Action #91 Z 1861 80903-4059 (719)475-0304 0.
U
Afklavit of Dr. ResnikofT, CY Case Page D-2 Exhibit D -
Ferguson v Ashland _
Victor Ferguson v Pete Petroski, Esq NORM contamination Ashland inc, et al Fleming, Hovenkamp &
Johnson Circuit Court, Grayson KY, No. 95-CI-124 ~
1330 Post Oak Blvd Houston, TX 77056-3019 Garza v Wyoming A Garza et al v Andrew Schirrmeister, Personal injury case re.
Minerals Westinghouse Electric 2603 Augusta, Ste 1200, birth defects; parents Corporation, et al; UDC Houston, TX 77057; involved in U mining in Corpus Christi, TX; (713)781-0771 Civ No. C-95-505 Idaho AG Public Service Co. of Larry Echohawk, Atty Federal Court Colorado v. Cecil D General State of Idaho; proceedings re. impact of Andrus, individually and Office of the Attorney transportation of sub fuel as the Governor of the General; Boise, ID to Idaho State of Idaho;.UDC; 83720-1000 District of Idaho; Civil #
(208)234-2400 e
91-0035-S-HLR Kennedy v Southern Joe Kennedy and Ellen Katy Jacobs, Esq Personal injury at California Edison Marie Kennedy v.
Howarth & Smith nuclear reactor Southern California.
700 So Flower St, Suite Edison, et al 2900 US District Ct, Southern Los Angeles, CA 90017 District of California 213/955-9400 Case No. 95-3769 J (RBB)
Longoria v URI Manuel T Longoria et al.
Ricardo DeAnda Property damage due te
- v. Uranium Resources, DeAnda Law Firm uranium solution mining Inc. et al.; in the District Plaza de San Augustin Court of Duval County, 212 Flores Ave.
j.
i.
2
~
Affidavit of Dr. Resnikoff, CY Case.
Page D-3 Ex!6 bit D 229"' Judicial District, Laredo, TX 78040
- r j
Texas: Cause # 16264 (210) 726-0038
]
Marina Owners v MM Euchee Marina &
Wm Vines; Butler, Vines Federal Court Campground, et al. v.
& Babb; Suite 810, First proceedings, potential 1
Martin Marietta Energy American Center; risk from Oak Ridge System, Inc. et al.;
Knoxville, TN 37901-releases
(
USDC; East Dist; North 2649;(423) 637-3531 t
Div; Docket: CIV-3 0510 Radioactive Waste Louie Roselle; Waite, Fernald U exposures and Ccmpaign -
Schneider, Bayless &
radiation doses to -
Chesley; 1513 Central nearby residents Trust Tower, Cincinnati, i
OH 45202; (513) 621-0267 Rock v Southern
. Joshua Rock v Southern Katy Jacobs, Esq Personal injury,
- hot" l
California Edison California Edison, et al, Howarth and Smith particles Case No. 95-3821 J
'700 S Flower St.
(RBB)
Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4216 a
Ta!itsch v Stepan.
Mathis Talitsch v. Stepan David Tykulsker Worker's comp; thorium j
Chemical Chemical Co.; Division of Bali, Livingston &
processing plant j
1 Worker's Compensation, Tykulsker Hackensack, NJ; C.P.
108 Washirygton St.
{
- 91-001800' Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 622-4545 Vercher v intracoastal Stuart Smith; Sacks &
Oil pipe scale -
t Smith; 1615 Poydras St.
+
.,1-a e=*.
s
~ -
.i i
AfElavit of Dr. Resnikoff, CY Case Page D-4 Exhibit D i
Suite 860; New Orleans, LA 70112; (504) 593-9600 h,
West v Kerr-McGee Kricty Lee West et al. v.
Thomas Trinley Personal injury cases re.
]
Kerr-McGee Chemical Patrick J Kenneally Ltd KMCC thorium Corp.; in USDC; 2 North LaSalle St.
i Northem District of '
Suite 1950 lilinois; Eastern Div.;
Chicago ILL60602 I
Case # 92 C 4211 (312) 236-2522 Muzzey/ Bryan v Kerr-Gary Muzzey et al. v.
Thomas Trinley Personal injury cases re.
McGee Kerr-McGee Chemical Patrick J Kenneally Ltd KMCC thorium Corp.; in USDC; 2 North LaSalle St.
f Northern District of l Suite 1950 l
filinois; Eastern Div.;
Chicago. ILL 60602
[
Case # 93 C 3623 (312) 236-2522 4
i e
'T
$E I
0:
[xh/b/f &
x Bcfore the-United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
^
)
In the matter of
)
Haddam Neck _
')
- (Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.)
)
Decommissioning
)
)
Affidavit of Salvatore Mangiaglil I, Salvatore hiangiagli, being duly sworn, upon oath state as follows:
- 1. Afy name is Salvatore hiangiagli. I am a resident of the State of Connecticut, residing in Haddam.in the County of hfiddlesex. I am a carpenter and fumiture maker. hly home is located at 54 Old Tumpike Road, Haddam, CT 06438. I reside at that address with my wife and two children. We have lived there for over seven years.
- 2. I am a member of the Citizens Awareness Network [CAN] of Rowe, Massachusetts, and Haddam, Connecticut. Ijoined CAN in 1993, and have been a member ever since. In the winter of 1994, following a workshop-presentation by CAN here in Connecticut, my wife and I staned a Connecticut chapter of CAN.
- 3. I have authorized CAN and its attomey to represent me in this matter and any related proceeding which may take place. I have read and support the comments CAN submitted on October 16,1995, in response to the NRC's July 25,1995, proposed changes in decommissioning mies.
4, h!y home is located approximately 1.25 miles from the Haddam Neck " Plant" also known as the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station, owned by a consortium of
- utilities called Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, and operated by one of the parent companies, Northeast Utilities. From approximately 1975 to 1978, I lived in Haddam Neck, Connecticut, less than two miles from the Connecticut Yankee (Haddam Neck) reactor. At that time, I did not know that the nuclear reactor was dumping liquid radioactive wastes along the Connecticut River and near the mouth of the Salmon River. I did not know the reactor was producing large amounts of liquid radioactive tritium wastes. In fact, I was pretty much oblivious to the entire nuclear power issue. As a result of my ignorance, I spent a lot time canoeing, boating, swimming, fishing, jet skiing, and picnicking in the area where I lived near the reactor.
l Affidavit ofSahatore Mangiagli Page2 1
5, While in the past I was able to innocently enjoy the beauty of the Connecticut and Salmon rivers and proudly show off the natural beauty of this area to my friends, now those pleasures are gone. I am afraid to freely catch or eat the fish from the river, or really just enjoy the natural beauty of the area, now that I know about the years of dumping ofliquid radioactive waste from the Haddam Neck reactor. It is of very great concern to me that this has gone on, panicularly as I am unaware of any attempt by the NRC to study the long-term site-specific effects of this dumping on the local environment. I am also unaware of any NRC studies of the site-specific environmental impacts of %e chosen deconunissioning method (DECON) at the Haddam Neck reactor, oi comparisons of such impacts to those, if any, from alternative decommissioning-methods like long-term safe storage of the reactor (SAFSTOR). I know that SAFSTOR greatly reduces radioactive waste volume, and lessens the amount of radioactive waste which needs to be discharged into the local environment. It also greatly decreases worker and public exposures to radiation dudng the decommissioning process. Until such environmental studies have been done 10 provide some reassurances about the levels of radioactive pollution in the plants, animals, fish, water and air in this area, I know I will not be able to really enjoy the local natural environment.
- 6. Because my family lives so close to the reactor, I have been aware and concerned about events there since we joined CAN in 1993, and learned about problems at another Yankee nuclear power station, the one called Yankee Rowe in Massachusetts.
- 7. When I joined CAN and decided to start a local chapter, I was concerned about routine releases of radioactivity at the Haddam Neck reactor, as well as problems due to the aging of the reactor, particularly effects of aging upon the steam generators.
- 8. Following a series of problems at the Haddam Neck reactor, the owners decided to shut it down pennanently in December of 1996. Prior to the shutdown of the Haddam Neck reactor, there was an adverse condition repon which was picked up by the Boston Globe newspaper. The Globe article discussed a variety of problems at Haddam Neck which ranged from the reactor being out oflicense compliance on.
number of significant safety issues ta what were called poor housekeeping practices.
- 9. The repon of the problems at Haddam Neck lead to funher investigation of the management practices at the reactor which disclosed the inadequacies of the Final Safety Analysis Repon [FSAR] and, of great significance, the fact that the Emergency Core Cooling System [ECCS] had never been adeqt ; to cool down the reactor in the event of a serious emergency. This meant that the Haddam Neck reactor had been operating out of compliance for 28 years. It was also disclosed that the containment air recirculation fans were inoperable.
Afidavit ofSalvatore Mangiagli Page 3 10.1 was already deeply concerted about these disclosures, when, in early September of 1996, there was an extremely critical event at the Haddam Neck reactor that involved a nitrogen leak into the core of the reactor that displaced the reactor coolant water. The operators did not notice that the core was loosing water. When they finally did realize it was occurring, they were unable to figure out what was causing the problem. The only thing which saved us from the effects of a core meltdown was the fact that the nitrogen bubble pressure equalized.with that of the coolant water remaining in the reactor so that coolant stopped escaping. At that point it was clear to me that the operators of the Haddam Neck reactor did not know what they were doing. Because they has been continuously modifying the stmeture of the reactor without properly documenting what they had been doing--that is to say, they were not properly updating the FSAR--the managers and operators could not control the reactor, and were jeopardizing my health and safety, and that of my family and comraunity each moment that they continued to run the reactor.
I1. As a result of the inoperable back-up systems, the owner / operators placed the Haddam Neck reactor in shutdown mode. Because a previous underwater inspection of the nuclear fuel transfer canal between the reactor and the spent fuel pool resulted in a wrench being left behind, the operators decided to seal off the canal and drain it for a visual inspection during what was planned as a temporary shutdown. The inspection resulted in two workers becoming highly contaminated with radioactivity, The workers had not been properly prepared for what they were going to do. They did not understand the task they were to perform and the dangers associated with it.
Moreover, proper procedures were not followed prior to exposing workers to a radioactively " hot area." They entered a highly contaminated area without the proper protective gear--that is without respirators--and scraped paint chips off the walls of the canal. The process of scraping the chips made airborne radioactive particulates that the workers may have inhaled. They also picked up a handful of grease that had fallen from a gear and used it to regrease the gear, thus handling radioactively contaminated grease. In addition, they collected three pounds of debris from inside the canal and placed it in a plastic bag. Upon leaving the canal, the radiation monitors went off, revealing that the workers were contaminated.
Subsequently, three radiation health physicists [RHPs] went into the canal with monitors to check on the level of contamination to which the workers.had been exposed. The RHPs were also contaminated, as the instruments they were using had not been properly calibrated.
12.In December of 1996, the owners of the Haddam Neck reactor decided to shut it down permanently, claiming solely economic reasons despite the many serious
{
mishaps, historic continuous operation outside the license basis, lack of compliance with safety regulations, and documented failures to maintain and update the FSAR.
i
Affidavi;ofSalvatore Mangiagli Page 4
- 13. As a recult of the safety incidents detailed above and the whole past history of the operatoriowners blatantly disregarding safety procedures and compliance with-United S ates Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC) regulations, I do not and-cannot trust the management and operators of Haddam Neck to safely deconunission-that is, disassemble and decontaminate--the reactor site and return it to a " green field" condition. However, even if I did not have what I believe are legitin.ste reservations about the competence of the owner / operators, the current "new" decommissioning rules make the prospect of the Haddam Neck reactor decommissioning process frightening to contemplate.
14.As CAN stated in its comments on the NRC proposal to change the decommissioning rules back in the Fall of 1995, urier the "new" rules the owner / operators do not need to provide any more than a mere outline of what they plan to do to take the reactor apart. The old mies required substantial advance planning with prior NRC approval of the plan, and the opportunity for a public heanng on the plan before any major decommissioning could take place.
The elimination of an adequate decommissioning plan with an approval process which includes possible public participation is not acceptable for a reactor with a long history oflack of compliance with regulations and serious management problems such as existed and still exist at Haddam Neck. It is likely that the new rule will be unable to address the problems at many other reactors.
15.The current decommissioning rules also allow the owner / operators greater freedom from regulatory oversight once they have submitted the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report [PSDAR], the scant outline of what they plan to do. This CAN also pointed out and objected to in its comments to the NRC on the proposed changes in the decommissioning rule. This practice is also unacceptable, particularly considering the incidents and history at Haddam Neck detailed above.
The history of the owner / operators at Haddam Neck raises great concern about decommissioning under the "new" rules taking place with even less NRC oversight than before the rule change.
i 16.1 believe that hearings are required under the Atomic Energy Act, as CAN stated in its October 16, 1995, written comments to the NRC on the proposed "new" decommissioning rule. I believe that the reason Congress required hearings when license amendments were needed was to assure the safety and health of the public and workers whenever a significant change takes place in the operational status of a nuclear power reactor. It defies logic and imagination for the NRC to, just by changing the labels, eliminate the distinction between operating a nuclear power i
i reactor and disassembling it.
This is what they had to do to avoid a license l
amendment proceeding prior to allowing a licensee to start decommissioning a reactor. Without the license amendment proceeding, the NRC and the licensee can i..
Affidavit ofSahutore Mangiagli
'Page 5 avoid public involvement in~ the choice of decommissioning options and control of the decommissioning process, 17,I believe that the NRC's change in the decommissioning rules is illegal 'and dangerous to public health and safety, which is essentially what CAN told the NRC in its comments concerning the proposed changes in the decommissioning rules.
There is _no doubt in my mind that living as close as my family and_I do-to the Haddam Neck _ reactor, we are directly affected by the choice of decommissioning options and the degree of regulatory control over that process.
- 18. As CAN pointed out in its comments _to the NRC on the proposed mie change, the NRC chose to make it' quick and easy for the licensees to deconunission reactors at the expense of my health and safety, that of my family, and my community, and also at the expense of any meaningful democratic decisionmaking process on the choice of decommissioning options. I believe, and agree with CAN, that both the Atomic Energy Act and common sense dictate that there be a public hearing process on the decommissioning of the Haddam Neck reactor. I also believe that more detailed environmental and engineering decommissioning plans, as well as a very high level of regulatory oversight of the process by the NRC, are necessary to assure public and occupational health and safety during the decommissioning of the Haddam Neck nuclear power reactor.
),%$2L YQXA2 f/'
.SO SWORN:
~
Salvatore Mang'iagli / 7 STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF W AAWto A, ss.
On this209ay ofQe ohhu-
,1997, the above named Salvatore Mangiagli appeared before me and s' wore under penalty of perjury that the above affidavit is true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
bdo NOcw.to SEAL Ffotany Public-my comj6ission expires 5-3% XCL SHEILA H. JONES Norany evuuc MY COMMiss: Oft EXPIR[$ MAy n, g 4
i
,__m_
m
~
- c +
ExHibi&5L
' Befo're the -
- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
u
.f_,
.- )
- In the maner of
)
Haddam Neck
);
-(Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.')
)
_ Decommissioning -
.)
')
t f
Affidavit of Deuglas G. Farber
- 1. Douglas G. Farber, being duly swom, upon oath state as follows:
- 1. Aly name is Douglas G. Farber. Iam a resident of the State of Connecticut residing in hiiddletown'in the Countv'of hliddlesex. For nearly fourteen years I have practiced law in the State of Connecticut. Ihave been admitted to the federal bar for the district -
of Connecticut since 1985, Aly home and office are located at -173 South NIain Street.-
' P.O.-Box 2091. Aliddletown. Connecticut 06457. I reside at that address and my two
- children live there with me every other weekend and every weekday afternoon from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., as well as three weeks during the summer. We have lived there since hlay.1994.
- 2. I ara a member of Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) of Rowe. NIassachusetts. and
~
- Hiddam. Connecticut.
- 3. Ihave authorized CAN and its attorney to represent me in this matter and any related proceeding which raay take place. I have read and suppon CAN's comments on the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's [NRC) July 25. 1995, proposed
- changes to its decommissioning rules which 'Deborah Katz, President of CAN.
submitted to the NRC on October 16.1995.
4 hly present home and oflice are h>eated approximately 1I miles from the Haddam Neck nuclear reactor which is also known as the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
The facility is owned by a conso tium of utilities called Connecticut Yankee Atomi'e
- Power Company. It is operated by one of the parent companies. Northeast Utilities.
- 5. In 1983, upon graduation from law school. I took ajob with a law finn in West Ifanford.
Connecticut. ' Four years later. my wife and I arranged to have a home built for us in a
. ~. -
A))iJant ofDouglas G. Farber Page 2 Haddam. Connecticut. The realtor who found the land for us touted, as one of the benefits of living in Haddam. the low property tax rate. At the time. I specifically inquired of the realtor as to the safety of the nuclear reactor and its impact on the comnmnity. She assured me that it was one of the safest reactors in the country.
contributed :o the economic well-being of the Town of Haddam, and was likely to continue to do so, at least until 2007 when its license would expire.
- 6. To me. Haddam seemed be a safe, clean old New England :ommunity with a lovely State Park Haddam Meadows, right on the Connecticut River across from the reactor.
With the Realtor's assurances about the quality of the local schools. Iow property wxes. and the safety of the nuclear reactor, the view of the reactor from Haddam Nieadows State Park was rather benign.
- 7. We moved into our new home on August 1,1987. Sly eldest daughter was 2 years and four months old at the time. Our house was about 3 miles'from the reactor. We practically lived at the Haddam Meadows park. enjoying the water where we would wade, flying kites. running the dog. playing Frisbee. and occasionally picnicking along the banks of the river. I became acquainted with " Connecticut River shad" which !
learned to enjoy as did many people from around the area. I enjoyed picking and eating the local berries, and buying and serving local produce to. my family. I also used to enjoy taking Connecticut River cruises which would begin upstream from the nuclear reactor and travel by the reactor downstream, then ein:le around and come back up river past the reactor, and on to the mooring.
R in 1989 I ran for a seat on the Planning and Zomng Conunission of the Town of Haddam. Connecticut. During the electoral process. I learned that Haddam was extremely dependent upon Connecticut Yankee for a substantial portion of tax I also discovered that the Town of Haddam had absolutely no plans or revenues.
contingencies developed to deal with the situation which would occur when thev lost that htrge portion of the tax basis. Additionally. I learned that any suggestions to the conununity that other sources of developrnent would help assure long tenu economic stability would be met with skepticism, as nearly evertone viewed the Haddam Neck nuclear reactor as something they could rely upon forever.
- 9. Shortly anerloosing the election. Ilearned about the Haddam Neck reactor making an
" unscheduled release" of radiation. For the first time. I began to wonder about lladdam's so-called " golden goose." I began to make inquiries about safety at the Haddam Neck reactor, and spoke, anmng others, to our seleetperson.
Evervone assured me that there was nothing to wony about.
e
MfiJavit ofDouglas G. Farber Page 3
- 10. Oursecond child was born in November,1991. Although we continued to go to the Haddam Meadows park. I stopped wading in the river with my children. stopped eating fish from the river, and stopped picking and eating local benies and other locally grown produce.
I1. In 1994, in the course of divorce, I moved to the building where i still live and work in Middletown. Connecticut. My ex-wife moved to Cromwell. Connecticut, which is about 16 miles fmm the reactor. Since that time, I have become increasingly aware of the long-term problems with the operation of Connecticut Yankee nuclear reactor at Haddam Neck. Ilearned about contamination in and around the reactor site. including systematic releases of radioactivity into the air and water, including large discharges of tritium. Tritium is a carcinogen which has been linked to various kinds of cancer and other disease conditions. Recently. I was told about inexplicably high cancer rates in a neighborhood in Haddam within about a mile from where I used to live. I have become increasingly concemed about my health and that of my children due to on-going exposures to radiation from the Haddam Neck reactor.
- 12. By September,1994. I had become good friends with Sal Mangiagli and Rosemary Bassilakis. In talking. we shared our concerns about the Haddam Neck reactor, and I leamed that Citizens Awareness Network had been dealing with issues related to decommissioning the Yankee Rowe nuclear power reactor in Rowe Massachusetts. I began to attend CAN meetings in Haddam. and learned that there are different ways that a nuclear power reactor may be decommissioned. The methods which greatly reduces worker and public exposure to radiation is safe storing the reactor (the so-called SAFSTOR option) until the radioactive contamination of a large part of the facility has nbated. I believe that this method also costs no more. and perhaps less.
than immediate decontamination and dismantlement (the so-called DECON option) which the owner / operators of Haddam Neck plan to use on the reactor facility and site.
11 The owners of the Haddam Neck Reactor decided to pennanently shut it down in Decemberof 1996. While I am certainly pleased that the reactor is no longer operating.
I am still very concerned about the current status of the facility and pending decommissioning. The reason for my concern is that even in its shutdov n state. the owner operators of the facility have been unable to prevent accidents and worker exposure on at least two occasions.
- 14. Recent disclosures about past mismanagement and safety systems which were inoperable for the operating life of the reactor have eroded any faith I may have had in the abilities of the current owner! operators to safely decommission this reactor.
.giJavn ofDouglas G. Farber page4
- 15. Not only am I concerned about the negative effects '. hat DECON would have on the local environment--which I am still afraid to redy ajoy as I once did--but I am also concerned that my health and safety, and that of my children. friends, and community, are being needlesslyjeopardized by decommissioning under the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's [NRC) current rules and regulations.
- 16. The current decommissioning rules prevent any meaningful public participation in the choice of decommissioning method, and pennit the current owner / operators, who have a long history of gross mismanagement and failure to maintain the Haddam Reactor in compliance with safety regulations. to undertake work which, if done improperly, will result in long-term contamination of the local environment. This will expose me and my family to additional substantial health risks, and permanently damage the natural.
economic and social environment of the area where Ilive and work.
- 17. The current SRC rules allow the owner' operators of the Haddam Neck reactor to begin majordecomrnissioning activities at the facility with nothing more than a ludicrously inadequate decommissioning plan --a mere twenty pages -- without the most affheted people, including me and my imily, and our State representatives having any meaningtid opportunity to challenge the plan and choice of decommissioning methods.
- 18. Under the current NRC rules. 90 days after the Haddam Neck reactor licensee submits its " plan" to the NRC it can begin major decommissioning activities.
The owneroperators of Haddam Neck submitted a short statement of their plans near the end of August.1997. Unless something is done to stop this process, they will begin majordecommissioning activities very soon. This will happen even though the NRC may not have Onished reviewing the plan. Moreover. the plan they have to look at is woefully inadaquate to describe the entire process. risks. methods, and costs of undertaking such an enormous action.
- 19. At the same time, the SRC reduced its resident inspector force by 50 o since shortly atter the reactor went offline in July of 1996. 'Ihis meard that under the current decommissioning ndes. not only do we not have any opportunity to participate in the decision making process concerning the choice of decommissioning options or the adequacy of the decommissioning plan. but the NRC has substantially reduced the level of oversight at Haddam Neck.
20.The NRC's decommissioning rules have placed me. my family. and the community where Ilive and work injeopardy. They have done this without permitting me to have any meaningful opportunity to be heard about choices which etTeet my health, safety.
and economic well being.
i
{ffidava ofDouglas G. Farber
- Page 5 l
- 21. The NRC's decommissioning rules also fail to take' account of any _of the unique characteristics-of the environment surrounding the Haddam Neck reactor..To my knowledge, there has-been no, site-specific environmental. assessment or-environmental impact study conducted to take account of the-way_ the proposed
' decommissioning' plan will affect local. aquatic life, particularly. any endangered species, with or without_ any accident during the decommissioning process. Nor. to ;
my knowledge, has there been any study of the environmental impacts which will occur whenahe licensee moves very large quantities of radioactive materials' oft this
- particular reactor site.
- 22.-'I cannot believe that the situation I have detailed above is pennitted under our environmentallaws and the laws which provide the NRC with the authority to regulate nuclear power in order to protect my health and safety. In order to eliminate the need for' a. licensee to obtain a license amendment and-approval of a-- substantial-
~ decommissioning plan prior to being pemtitted to deconunission a nuclear rejetor, the NRC had to abolish the distinction between the operating license and a license for 4'
decommissioning activities. -This change to the decommissioning rules is completely irrational on its face and leads to irrational and dangerous results. as I have described above.
SO SWORN:
ggf_
'y f
D iglas G. IGrber STATE OFCONNECTICLT COUNTY OF NIIDDLESEK ss.
4 On this.'M:n day of September 1997, the above named Douglas G. Farber appeared before me
- and swore under penalty of perjurt thar'the ton: going aflidavit is true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
- /
l]j
~
- - (( b L h,,'
SEAL Notary I ublic--my commission expires n : *=.:u g
4
~
k s
4 i
i
...,..w.
..--w--
.v.--,--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ '
4.-
$ W7lb/C $
-\\
- Before the -
i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
o
)
In the m: iter of
-)
Haddam Neck:
)
(Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.) )
Decommissioning
~ )
)
Affidavit of Rosemary Bassilakis I, Rosemary Bassilakis, being duly swoin, upon oath state as follows:
- 1. Afy name is Rosemary Bassilakis. I am a resident of the State of Connecticut, residing in Haddam in the County of hfiddlesex.' For over ten years I have been employed as a research associate working for a private, independent scientific research company.' My -
home is located at 54 Old Turnpike Road, Haddam, CT 06438, I reside at that address-with my husband and two children. We have lived there for over se'cen years.
- 2. I am a member of Nuclear Information and Resource Service [NIRS] and the Citizens Awareness Network [CAN] of Rowe, Macsachusetts, and Haddam, Connecticut.
- 3. I have authorized NIRS and its attomey to represent me in this matter and any related '
proceeding which may take place. I have read and support NIRS's comments on the.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's [NRC] July 25,1995, proposed changes to its decommissioning rules which Paul Gunter of NIRS submitted to the NRC on October 18, !995.
- 4. Afy home is located approximately 1.25 miles from the Haddam Neck nuclear reactor nhich is also known as the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The facility is owned by a consortium of utilities called Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company.
It is operated by one of the parent companies, Northeast Utilities.
- 5. Because my family lives so close to the reactor. I am aware of and concerned about events that have taken place there, including, but not limited to, problems described in the Affidavit of Salvatore hiangingli, which I have read and with which I concur, and incorporate by reference in this affidavit.
- 6. It is my opinion that the NRC has deliberately chosen to promulgate rule changes governing the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors which are designed to speed up the decommissioning process, as hir. Gunter of,NIRS stated in his comments objecting to the NRC's attempts to accommodate its licensee's desire to expedite the
a' s
Affdavit ofRosemary Bassilakis Page2 decommissioning process in order to realize cost benefits. It is also clear to me, as Mr.
Gunter points out, that disassembly of a nuclear power reactor is a major activity which--
cannot take place without the direction and permission of the NRC, an agency of the federal government.
This permission-includes access to funds collected for decommissioning. Decommissioning a nuclear power reactor is simply and plaanly a major federal activity of the precise kind Congress intended the NRC to regulate in order that public and occupational health and safety be assured, and in accordance with national environmental policy. Moreover, in CAN v. NRC,39 F.3d 284 (1st Cir.1995), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized that the Early Component Removal Project (CRP) at Yankee Rowe was a major federal action. There is no meaningful difference between the CRP at Yankee Rowe and the immediate decontamination and disassembly (DECON) decommissioning option which the owner / operators of the Haddam Neck reactor plan to use to decommission that reacter facility.
- 7. I am concerned that the NRC, as Mr. Gunter pointed out in his comments, has chosen to obliterate the distinction between licensed " operation" and " disassembly" of a nuclear power reactor in order to cut the public out of the decommissioning process. The sole purpose of eliminating the distinction between " operating" and " decommissioning" is to do away with the need for licensees, such as the owner / operators of the Haddam Neck nuclear reactor, to be required to seek a license amendment in order to be allowed to begin dismantlement of a reactor facility. By doing away with the distinction between operating the reactor and taking it apart, the NRC intends to avoid any opportunity for tim public to become involved in approving or disapproving the way a licensee wants to decommission a nuclear reactor. Anyone who is aware of the United States Court of Appeals f~or the First Circuit's decision in CAN v. NRC, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir.1995),
knows that the Court told the NRC that decommissioning is a major federal action which requires approval under the National Environmental Policy Act. As Mr. Gunter points out in his comments, the Court also struck down the NRC's attempt to manipulate the meaning of words in order to permit Yankee Atomic Electrie ; impany to do exactly what the current decommissioning rules now permit at Haddam Neck. The Court also strenuously objected to the NRC's attempts to play semantic games in order to avoid the implications ofits own regulations and several federal laws which would otherwise bar the NRC from allowing nuclear reactor licensees to take apart nuclear reactors and clear off the sites without first undergoing a public and Commission approval process of the requisite environmental, engineering, and financial studies and plans for decommissioning.
- 8. As a result of the safety incidents detailed in Ntr. Mangiagli's affidavit, and the history of the Haddam Neck reactor's operator / owners near total disregard for safety procedures and compliance with NRC regulations, I do not and cannot trust the management and operators of Haddam Neck to safely decommission the react r site. Moreover, in this case, the decommissioning rules which the NRC amended to try to get around CAN v.
NRC will permit a licensee with a terrible track record to attempt to accomplish the
Affidavit ofRosemary Bassilakis Page 3 decontamination and disassembly of an old, highly contaminated reactor site without an adequate decommissioning plan and less NRC oversight than before the rule change.
- 9. I am extremely concerned about the health effects which the_Haddam Neck reactor has had upon my community, and fear that I and/or my family may soon begin to suffer the same problems that other local people have discussed with me. In particuirr, I recently teamed that there is a neighborhood about 1/2 mile from me where a number of people have come down with leukemia. Another person I know has reported to me that there is a very high incidence of cancer in Deep River, a town about three or four miles south of where I live. Less than a week ago, I learned about the high rate of cancers in another community across the river from me, on the same side of the river as the reactor. I have also recently been told about a veterinarian near the reactor whose practice has experienced a high rate of cancer among animals. Moreover,1 have noticed a number of Down's syndrome children in this area.
Several studies of health and disease in communities near nuclear reactor facilities have found elevated numbers of people born with Down's syndrome to be associated with ccaception and gestation in the vicinity of nuclear power reactors.
- 10. For the years of its operating life, the Haddam Neck reactor produced and released into the nearby Connecticut River very large amounts of tritium.
The total amount is estimated in NRC documents to be 120,000 curies. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto, copy of Letter from Rosemary Bassilakis to Alan Wang, Project Manager, Haddam Neck (March 9,1996). This radioactivity has been dispersed into our ecosystem, particularly in local fish, animals, and vegetation which is consumed one way or another by all of the people in this community, including me and my family. During 50 % of the time there are air inversions in this area. People living near the river are very likely to have been breathing aerosolized tritium. Tritium is highly carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic to human beings. See generally Exhibit 2, attached hereto, Citizens Awareness Network, "The Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic and Transmutational effects of Tritium" (March,1994).
I1.It is unreasonable and irrational for the NRC to permit the people who produced and dumped all of this highly toxic material into our local community's river to choose the process and direct the decommissioning of the Haddam Neck reactor. The river into which they dumped that enormous amount of poisonous tritium is the local recreational area where many of us swim, hike, fish, boat, garden, and gather berries and flowers. It seems self-evident that any rule which permits such an aberration to occur cannot be one that is protecting public safety and health, and is not doing so, despite the express intention of Congress that the NRC's mission is to protect public health and safety.
- 12. I am also very concerned about the presence of transuranics and hot particles dispersed into our community due to leaking and damaged stainless steel clad fuel rods, and sloppy radiological controls at the Haddam Neck reactor. See Exhibit 3, attached hereto, copy of article from The Day, "NRC finds Connecticut Yankee's radiation control program lacking" (July 19, 1997), Exhibit 4, attached hereto, copy of article from Nucleonics
m l
Afidavit ofRosemary Bassilahs Page4 Week, " Connecticut Yankee Extends Outage 60 Days Due to Fuel Rod Damage" (October 26,199); Exhibit 5, attached hereto, copy of article from Nucleonics Week,
" Connecticut Yankee Delays Restart Until April Due To Fuel Rod Damage"(December 21, 1989), Exhibit 6, attached hereto, NRC Informational Notice 97-36, " Unplanned intakes By Worker Of Transuranic Airborne Radioactive Materials And External Exposure Due To inadequate Control Of Work"(June 20,1997).
13.These hot particles have been in the news out west in connection with suspected leukemia incidences among NRC inspectors, nuclear reactor workers, and their family members.
The particles may be easily carried out of a reactor site and into an unsuspecting community by persons who, while on the reactor site, pick up the hot particles on shoes, clothes, or in their hair. The particles are tnen transferred to others in routine contact, in the course of laundering, or even in the course of combing and cutting hair. Such particles cannot be detected unless a hand Md, extremely sens;tive device is employed to screen every single person coming and going from a reactor facility. I believe that this has not and is not being done at the Haddam Neck facility, thus I and my family, in addition to many other members of this community, are at risk while the current licensee is allowed to undertake any activities at Haddam Neck.
14.This situation described above will be exacerbated under the planned DECON of the reactor, when workers are directed to begin cutting up highly radioactive components and structures of the reactor. It is my undntanding that during the cutting done at Yankee Rowe, there were hot panicle releases. See Exhibit 7, attached hereto, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, YA-002326, ALARA Review 93-007, "ALARA Post Job Review Record," at YA002327-002330 (September 6,1994) (cutting of baffle noted to release hot particles, with 114 personnel contaminations attributed to this project; alternative cutting proce.ss and associated " gas lift" should be sought given elevated dose rates from radioactive debria liberated during cutting; large amounts of fine debris was deposited on horizontal surfaces adjacent to cutting, "after completing of the segmentation proj':t, contact dose rates on the STC [ shield tank cavity] floor were in the tens to hundreds of renvhour"). It is reasonable to anticipate that such hot particle releases will soon be taking place at Haddam Neck. This will provide an unreasonably increased risk that my family and I will be exposed to dangerous radioactivity.
t
- 15. All of the above observations, and other too numerous to detail here, give me reason to believe that the radioactivity from the Haddam Neck nuclear power reactor has had an adverse health impact upon my community, and, thus, v.ill likely have an adverse health impact upon my family. Decommissioning can be done quick and diny, exposing many more people here, including me and my family, to additional doses of radiation, but it need not be done that way. Right now, unless something is done to stop the process now in motion, the owner / operators of the Haddam Neck reactor plan to soon begin use of the quick and diny method of dect
- ssioning, DECON, which will result in more radiation released into this community, ano directly affecting me and my family.
AfMarit ofRoremary Bassdakis Page5 4
- 16. I am also aware that the method of safe storage (SAFSTOR), in addition to yieldir'g much lower doses to workers and the general public, may also cost tne same or less than the DECON method. Thus, there is a real question as to why the NRC is permitting licensees to use a method of decommissicaing that does not achieve the lowest doses to workera and the public that may reasonably be achieved (ALARA), and may, in fact, be more costly than the SAF5 TOR method which substantially reduces both waste volume and exposures. Despite the fact the ALARA approach is supposed to be a key regulatory means of protecting public an.'secupational health and safety, the decommissioning mie encourages licensees to use the DECON method which may, but not with any certainty, provide short-term savings, at the price of higher radiation exposures to workers and the public, and much greater volumes of radioactively contaminated waste to be disposed of.
- 17. Since I have learned of the problems at the Haddam Neck reactor, I have been unable to comfortably e'ioy local recreational resources which are near the reactor. I believe that the NRC has. t taken any steps to protect the local natural environment throagh making proper environmental studies of the e:Tects that using particular methods of decommissioning at this speci6c reactor site are likely to have upon the local environment. I am not aware of any site speci6e studies of the potential effects, in terms of environmental or social costs, that the NRC has done to compare the decommissioning options and consider likely local effect of accidents and or releases of radioactivity, or evaluate the potential the licensee will run out of funds and leave behind a radioactively contaminated site that cannot be cleaned up for a very long time. I am also not aware of any recent environmental studies of the effects upon the local environment of continued dumping into the Heddam Neck reactor discharge canal of liquid radioactive e0luents, including tritium, from the Haddam Neck reactor. I am panicularly concemed that this dumping is having, and will continue to have, adverse impacts upon Osh, wildlife, and plants in the area near the reactor, including thu Salmon River area. The unreviewed effects of the dumping of radioactive waste in this area has made it very difficult for me to enjoy the natural environment, and has made me concerned and fearful about the effects of the radioactive contamination of local plants, animals, and fish upon me, my family, and our community.
- 18. It is my understanding that the use of the DECON method of decommissioning the Haddam Neck tractor will result in more radioactive liquid waste being dumped into the local river, and the productior, of much more radioactive waste, than if the reactor was placed in a SAFSTOR condition. Without any opponunity for hearings on the choice of decommissioning options used, and without any site-specific studies of the environmental impacts of the choice of decommissioning option compared with other alternatives, I, my family, community, and the local environment are forced to suffer and bear the radioactive pollution consequences of the chosen decommissioning option (DECON).
- 19. It is my opinion that the NRC's violations of environmental laws continues to directly impair my ability, and that of my family, to enjoy and appreciate the local natural environment. Neither i nor my family will be able to enjoy the local natural environment until the NRC:(a) begins to make the kinds of efforts necessary to adequately assay site-1
3 Q1Javit ofRosemary Bassilakis Page 6 s
specific environmental problems; (b) requires adequate engineering and fia.mcial decommissioning plans; (c) mandates a public pre approval process of these plans which includes all local stakeholders and provides ready access to any and all necessary
. technical documents so that the public may really know the probable costs and benefits i
(safety, fiscal and health) of whichever decommissioning option is used; (c) restores the j
common sense distinction between " operating" and " dismantling" a reactor; and, (d) sets up a rigorous system of oversight until each reactor facility is retumed to " green field"
. condition.
20._lt is my opinion, consistent with the corr.ments made by NIRS when the
. decommissioning rules were originally proposed, that the NRC's decommissioning rule j
now in effect is not protecting my health and safety, that of my family, and that of my community. I believe that federal laws require the NRC to provide such protection, and that to the extent the current regulations fail to do so ey are illegal and should be struck down.
EO SWORN:
/m en.,
ec C
'~
Ro[emaryBassilafk
~
~
STATE OF CONNECTICUT l
4 COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, ss.
On this$QD_ ay ofSe Aho y
.1997, the above named Rosemary Bassilakis appeared before me and swore under penalty of perjury that the foregoing affidavit is true to the best of her knowledge and belief.
skkJ4t IA Owo SEAL Notary Public my ccuhmission expires E-M-1gf2 l
BHElt.A H. JONES NOTARY PUBl.lC WY ccMMisS10N EXPtRE3 MH M. Ei 5
i l.
i 4
4 b
E xl?i3it 1 Qo BessilaWs Affiden.,t, 1
i
?
54 Old Turnpike Road Haddam, CT 06438
}
(860) 345-8431' March 9, 1996 i
US NRC Mr. Alan Wang r
Haddam Neck Project Manager l
i Mailstop OWTN 14C Washington, D. C. 20555 3
Dear Mr. Wang:
In reviewing the Haddam Neck (HN) nuclear reactor's liquid i
tritium output data reported An the NRC 1992 Annual Report titled
" Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants", it became apparent that this reactor has been allowed to release an order of magnitude more tritium than nearly every single reactor in this* country, even reactors twice its size.
Below is a table showing the average liquid tritium release in curies calculated for tne years 1982 to 1992 for NN and four other randomly chosen pressurized water reactors (PWR).
Also included in the table are the date each reactor went online and the current license Megawatt output.
PWR Reactor Name Operation License Average yearly Start Date Megawatt liquid tritium (Month / Year) output output in Curies F
(1982 thru 1992)
Haddam Neck 1/68 1820 3559 l
Trojan 1 5/76 3410 258 Millstone 2 12/75 2700 307 l
Kewaunee 6/74 1650 385
{
Prairie Island 1-12/73 1650 Prairie Island 2 12/74 1650 587*
r k
,,,r
,,v
,-,.+,,,-,.,~n----,.,,.
j j
4
- This number is the combined tritium output of Prairie Island 1 l
and 2.
?
Since 1967 until 1992, the HN reactor released 101,208 curies of
- tritium, i
1 am fully aware that this reactor has been in-compliance with the NRC regulations for liquid tritium output concentrations.
Compliance has been maintain (d through the dilution solution.
In order for Haddam Neck to release such huge amounts of tritium into the river, the reactor has had to make numerous and prolonged liquid' tritium releases.
For example, trom July to December in 1990, the reactor made 128 liquid batch releases for a total of 847.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> worth of liquid discharge.
To discharge 847.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> in a 6 month period, the reactor had to discharge 20% of the time.
In your response to me, please to not attempt to inform-se that tritium is relatively benign as this is simply not true.
I am enclosing a paper titled "The Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic and Transmutational Effects of Tritium" compiled ble Deborah Katz, Health Coordinator for the Citizens Awareness Network.
In addition to listing low-level radiation studies and tritium research, the paper also discusses the epidemic of disease found in the Deerfield River Valley (DRV).
The DRV is where the Yankee Rowe reactor released tritium for thirty years (such less tritium than HN), and where air inversions occur over 33% of the time.
In the Connecticut River Vallgy air inversions studies undertaken from 1962 to 1964 before the HN reactor went on line show that air inversions occur here nearly 50% of the time!
Air inversions trap effluent in the river valley and, consequently increase the adverse health effects which can be caused by tritium.
I am also enclosing a paper by Ian Fairlie 'atled " Tritium, the Ove.rlooked Nuclear Hazard".
This paper din sses the shortcomings in the metabolic models used to caJ 21 ate the concentrations of tritium in the body.
The mode i ignore the behavior of organically bound tritium (OBT).
The paper states that "0BT delivers radiation doses for much longer periods of time than tritiated water - 280 to 550 days as compared to 10 days" and that "it delivers doses to specific organs and cella rather that being diluted throughout the 40 kilograms of water in the average human body".
High tritium releases appear to be unique to the HN rear. tor.
What are the systematic reasons this reactor has had to release so much tritium since it went online in 1967.
It is quite evident that technology exists for lower tritium discharges.
I would like to know why the dRC did not force Northeast Utilities to modify HN's reactor systems so as to minimize our communities exposure to tritium?
i i.
I am frightened for the health of my family and my community.
and feel as if we have been the recipients of a long term tritium exposure experiment.
An experiment in which no agency is collecting health data.
t Very truly-yours, I
Rosemary Bassilakis f
cc:
Denny Galloway; Supervising Radiation-Control Physicist-CT Dept. of Environmental Protection l
US Senator Joe Lieberman US Senator Christopher Dodd US Representative Sam Gedjenson t
Haddam Selectman Marge Debold t
CT Representative Terry Concannon CT Senator Eileen Daily-I
. i I
I 1
p.-9.%
-w,*,-
pi-tvena-e by
'9"
?
"v'**w
- "t e*"WN*mUe"'5"***TP'"'WWN""'"-P4*P"*
""'*W
&W
'F'
enwe (n> Bassitaws Mpdant )
l l
THE CARCINOGENIC, MUTAGENIC, i
TERATOGENIC AND i
l TRANSMUTATIONAL EFFECTS OF TRIT UM I
L f
V i
l i
l CITIZENS WARENESS.
ETWORK I
4 l
5 MARCH 1994 l
i l
Contacc Compiled by; Deborah Xatz Citizens Awareness Network Hesith Coordinator Box 83 (413)339 4374/8768 Shelburne Falls, MMM 370 I'
Cimiss Awotsiss Nirwcix
\\'70]JC ON Ovw the past two decades, residents of th alarming health problwns: an increawd cancer rate, miscarriages, and a ten fold increase in Down's syndrome (a congenital disease characterized by mental eetardation and bodily malformation). l.ocal health authorities were t;nable or unwilling to account for the region's grow, ing pattem of health anomalies.
Attention soon tumed to questionable safe'y of the procedures at the nearby Yankee Rowe nuclear power station-the nation's first "expwimental* commweial reactor--and the effectiveness of the standard nuctor salmy guidelines of the Nucler Regulatory Commission [NRCl. During a series of public meetings, area residents teamed that the Yankee Rowe reactor had used the nurby Deerfield River as a radioactiw waste dump over the past thirty years.
Concemed citizens, realizing that the river had been widely used for well water, crop irrigation, and recreational purposes, began to question whethw the increases in disease were due to the reactor's regular releaus of radioactive matalats into the river.
,lt was at this point that the Citizens Awareness Network [CANl was formed as a grassroots organiza-tion primarily concerned with the health and safay of its community.
The Citizens Awareness Network began to investigate effluent releases from the Yanicee Rowe reac-tor into the Deerfield River, and compiled a 30-yur history of such releases. CAN found that large quantitles of tritium had been roleswd into the river, given its size and the degree of contact the community routinely had with its watw.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH] initially denied that there was any cauw for concem. After continuing pressure from CAN and the local community, MADPH agreed to a preliminary investigation of the diseases.
With the professional assistance of epidemiologist Dr. Sidrey Cobb, and the work of concemed citi.
zens. CAN coordinated research into state health statistics, effluent reports and meteorological data.
Dr. Cobb analyzed the raw data and concluded that an epdemic indeed existed in the Deerfield River Valley, and that a full scab epidemiological study was warranted.
M. analysis of statewide statistics provided by MADPH confirmed a statistically significant increase in various types of cancer in the Deerfield River Valley.
CAN, community leaders and local legislators are working to create a new statewide birth defects registry, which was prompted by the deficiencies in MADPH's records for the incidence of Down's Syndrome.
.g.
Cmuss Awmsus Nernon
..r y
Tritium is a radionuclide emitted as waste from reacton and the new generation of nuclear reactors it has been an integral part of the nuclear weapons industry: tritium was released into the atmosphere as part of weapons testing :n the 19$0's and 60's. It is a beta emitter and has a half life of 12.5 years. It decays to an isotope of helium, releasing a neutrino and a beta particle (an electron). The electron is slow. moving and has a vwy short range.
Tritium was believed to be a relatively benign radionuclide because of the weakness of the beta radiation emitted when it decays. The beta electron is a small particle that passes readily through most barriers. The dangus of tritium come from inhalation, ingeulor'. and absorption.
Tritiated water (HTO) passes through the human body in 12 days. Howewr, when the radionuclide unites with carbon in the human body, plants, or animals, it becomes organically bound (08T) and can remain in the human body for 450 to 650 days. One study found traces of uitium in the body 10 years after exposure.uc As tritium makes its way up the food chain it may become more concentrated. 068 Pigs fed with triti.
ated food thornselves became tritiated, as did their offipring. The blood, heart, and kidneys of the piglets were more tritiated than the food they wre fed.um
' Tritium is carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic un Human beings can receive chronic expo-sure to OBT through the ingestion of plants and animals exposed in an effluent pathway, in addition to direct uptake through inhalation, absorption and drinking contaminated water. Especially sensi.
tive to the effects of tritium are rapidly growing cells such as fetal tissue, genetic materials and blood forming organs.u. t t a ti, m Tntium is dense and has a short track length, it releases all its activity at one time. This makes :t more potent and similar to soft x rays which ar* more effective than hard x-rays. os) When and where it deposits its radioactivity, it creates at least one lesion in the cell. Th.'s lesion must be repaired within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or when the cell eventually divides, it will be carcinogenic.u6. m There may be a threshold below which the repair mechanism is not activated in the body; o L '5. It 221 thereby, low levels of chronic radiation exposure can accumulate in the body without the repair system being activated ob 20 20
- 2t is)
Tritium has a transmutational effect which is mutagenic. After the particle releases its radioactivity into the cell, a helium ion is formed. The helium springs away from the Opanicle and sewes the bond with the compound to which the tritium had attached itself. The compound acquires a posi.
tive charge and becomes chemically active.us it then can attach itself to a ring of a protein precursor that will make up the chromosomal strands in the DNA. Depending on the ring it attaches to, it can affect the protein precursors and damage the DNA. This would create a mutational effect.am
... ~ -
. _. - _. _ ~
Gum Awussin Nnwos5 J
TNTIUM i
Radiological research has found a correlation between tritl'um and cumulative genetic injury, QU hre was found in successiw generations a reduction in relative brain weight, reduction in liner i
size, and increased reabsorption of embryos. Correlations have been found in epidemiological rueerch between tritium and Down's syndrome. Associations have also been found between low.
j level radiation and Down's syndrome.is. 7,e,io, m i
The Desv6eid Rivw Valley (ORY)
Nuclear power stations must dispose of waste to cperate. For pressurized water ructors (such as Yankee Rowe), the main ofRuont release is into a body of water. Thu. the Deer 6 eld River Valley becomes a radiation waste dump for the Yankee Rowe. When tritium is released into such an envi.
ronment, plant, animals, and human beings in the vicinity can be contaminated.01, M The Deer 6 eld Rivw is a small winding river in wessem Massachuseus. It has white noter and is fast running. N valley through which the rivw runs is 800 feet on eithw side, creating a tunnel in which inversions are held. Fog hangs in the valley for days at a time. There are air inversions more
{
than 34% of the time.
N rivw has been used for recrational purposes over the 31 year history of the Yankee Rowe rec.
tor, the nat6on's Arst ' experimental" commercial rwctor Citizww swim, Ash and boat in the rivw, f
Wells and cropland are adjacent to the rivw, and in times of drought, rivw watw is used to irrigate crops. Each yur 500,000 people use the rivw.
For 31 yuts the Deerfield River has been a dumping ground for low level radioactive waste. During the 1960s and early 70s, Yankee Rowa h:d problems with fuel rods and dumped large amounts of tritium into the river. Up to 1,800 curies a ywr were refused, nominally within NRC guidelines.
During the time of operation the estimated concentrations of tritium wwe 1,000 t'mes greater in the DRV than cuiside the valley. There were approximately 5 batch releases per month. People in the community were generally unaware that the rivw was radioactiw, although it had been noted that i
since the ructor opened, the river had nevw frozen.
Epidende of Disease in DRV incruses in miscarriages, mental retardation, cancer and other hulth problems began to be noted in the 1980s through.1990s. There haw been 10 children born with Down's syndrome since the 1980s, all to mothers under the age of forty. ' Affected families live within a thru mi!e radius of each other in the efnuent pathway, or haw had extensive contact with the riwr during their pregnancies, Down's syndrome occurs on avwage in one of 700 to 1,000 live births. Of the approximately 2.000 lin births within the valley in the last 20 yurs, the incidence of Down's syndrorre is closer to one in 100. bre have been six chromosomally damaged children conceived during the same time 4,
m u -
Cimius Awussits Nirwon TNTIUM period. Two of thne children wwe bom. One died at 6 months; the other five years old with Down's syndrome features. Another of the chromosomally damaged fetuses was trisomic. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has begun a preiiminary investigation of the environs around Yankee Rowe, in the pristine rural environmwool of the DRV.
There is a 30% increase in five diffwent caneers: a 40% increase in heart disene; and a 110%
increase in infectious diwase leading to mortality.
Citizens Awarenen Network (CAN) and Nuclear Information Resourr15ervice (NiRS) have demand.
ed that NRC fund an independent epidemiological investigation of the DRV. This would entail an effluent pathway study of the rivw. We have also demanded that NRC reevaluate their inadequate and unfounded dosimetwy standards for tritium.
To understand the encts of tritium exposure-the effects of organically bound tritium (08T), and tri.
tlated water (HTO) must be calculated. Since the effects of tritium are on a cellular level rather than an orSan level, mic,rodosimetry is required.
The issues raised in this report about the operation of the Yankee Rowe plant have been forwarded to the inspector Cenwal of the Nuclear Replatory Committee for investigation.
=.
.g
Cnuiss Annistss Nimeix B B_ OG W-Y Annotated bibliography of low 4evel radiation studies and tritium research Down's syndrome 1
E. Alberman, J.A. Polani, Fraser Roberts, C.C. Spicer, M. Elliot, E. Armst ong, ' Parental Exposure to X-Irradiation and Down's Syndrors' London: Ann. Him. Genet. 36 (1972) : 195.
Effect of radiation on increene in Dowm's syndrome was grealot in subgroup where X rays were received more than ten years before conception. There was sigmficant increase of 'ever" X rayed nothers in Down's syndrome group. The size or dose of X ray was leu important than the cumulauve effect, as if damap was not Silowed by repair.
2 V. Seir, ' Health Effects of Exposure e Low Lewis of lonizing Radiation? National Academy Prem.1990.
Report stated that there was no threshold for the effects of radiaton when the brain is in its rnost senslove stage of dewtopment. This was especially true from 615 weeks through 22 weeks of gestation.
3 Susan Harlap, 'Dcwn's syndrome in West Jeruulem/ Arnetican Joumaf Epsdem, 97, No. 4.
pp. 225 232.
Research found that there were env6ronmental factors involved in the etiology of Down's syndrome. Hartap compared rates of Down's tyndrome in different groups in Israel. For mc<hers aged under 35, the age-adjusted risk of Down's syndrome is increased eightfold in one group wt o used the ntual baths while for older mothers difference in risk is less than threefold.
4 N. Kochupillal,l.C. Verma, M.$. Crewal, V. Ramalinggaswami, 'Down's syndrome and related abnormalities in an area of high background radiation in coastal Kerala? Nature,262 (1976) :
60 61.
Research compared high background population to control with low background radiation. '.ie observed frequency was higher than in cc,ntrols and significant. Higher frequency of cases of Down's syndrome bom to mothers aged 30 39. Association suggested between low dose radiation exposure of older matemal age dependence suggests that the damagmg event accelerates oocre aging and causes primary tnsomy rather than translocaton insomy.
1 CN Rasmer, Elles, and Zeally, 'Down's syndrome in the Lothian Region of Scotland 1978 to 1979? #iomed & Pharmacother 45 (1991): 267 272.
Observable increases in Down's syndrome were noted in Lothian Region of Scotland after the accident at Chemobyl. The highest rate of 27.12 m 1987 was 65nrficantly higher than average for t*e whole penod. Increase m incidence peaked in late 1987 and subsequently rt<umed to prv.1986 levels.
6 Sheehan, M. Patncia and O. Hillary trere, 'An Unusual Cluster of Babies with Down's syndrome Bom to Former Pupils of an insh Boarding School? Bntish four. Med.11 Dec.1983 : 287.
Sheehan found a cluster of children bom with Down's syndrome (8) to mothers who attended a girls school as adolescents, dunng the Windscale fire at that reprocessing reactor. The school j
was in the effluer.' pathway and the rad 6onuclide released was tntium. There were 30 berth atmormalities in all h this small populaton.
.g.
i Gmms Awoimsi Nitwon i
BIBUOGRAPHY 7
A.T. Sigler, et al* Radiation exposure in parents with ch6ldren with mongolism (Down's syndmme)?
Su/Aetin o/ John Hop & ins HosNta,2 (1968) t 10451049.
Radiation exposure increased the nsk of mongolism in parents. There was validation of the vww concoming cumulative radiation damage to pnotic material. Egosurn was result of fluroscopic and therapeutic rediation, a
K. Sperlind, J. Pelz,RD. Wegner, l. Schultim and E. Struck, ' Frequency of insomy 21 in Germany before j
and aher the Chemobyl acculent? #iomed & Pharmacother 45,(1991): 255 262.
Incmased in Down's syndrome wem observed in Germany aher tie Chernobyl accident. Them was a peak in incidence in January 1987. This peak is highly sigmficant.
9 Irene and Ellrabeth Uchida, and J. Curtis, 'A Poesible Association Benwen Matemal Radiation and Mongollsm? Iancef, (10/14/61) t 848 850.
There is a strong association between the incidence of mongollem and a history of matemal abdo ninal radiation. Radiation effed may be age <iependen 10 T Zuftan and W. Lumin,'An Epidemiologicallnvestigation of Mutational Diseases in the High Back mund 3
Radiation Area of Yangiang, Chins? / Aadiet. Res. 27 (1986) : 141 150.
There worm inosases in Down's syndrome found in high backgmund radiation area, increases in cancer wem not found. Average backpound doee was 330 mil /yr and 114 mil /yr in contml group. There was a higher rate of cancer in coneol youp which had se:eived a smater number of medical X-rays.
)
Tritium 11 f1 '. Cahill and C.L. Yuile, " Tritium Irradiation of Mammalian Fetus? Radiation Research 44 (1970) : 727.
CWfspring conceived by parents subjected to low lewl lifetime esposure manifest effects at HTO activity levels10-100 times lower than those required during esposure in utero only.
12 L.A. Carsten and 5.L. Cummerfored, ' Dominant Lothat Mutations in Mice Resulting from Chronic Tntiated Water Ingestion? Radiation #eaearch 66 (1973): 609.
Two successiw generations of mice were egoned to continued inpstion of tritiated water. In second pneration females, there was a significant reduction in the number of viable embryos.
13 A.L. Carsten, et al,
- 1989 Summary Update d the Brookhaven Tritium Toxity Program with Emohasis on Recent Cytogenic and I.ifstimhing Stud'as in Proceedings of the Third Japan--US worinhop on Tehum * " ^'-t, and Hemish Physice.'(Edited by 5. Okada), Institute of Plasma Physics, Nagoya Unrverswy, Nayoga, Japan. IPPJ-REV.3.
Thoee may be an eNect at wry low doses where the radiation inhibas the repair mechanism. This may occur dunng tntium irradiation. Theory conmient with the track structure calculations of Goodhead usmg very weak X rays. There was sigmfir. ant reduction in the number of viable embryos resulting from matings benwen animals maintained on tritium diet. Then was no effect on breeding eNectiveness.
14 R.L. Dobson and M.E. Cooper, ' Tnt 6um Toxity - Effects of low lewi 3 HOH Exposure in Dewloping Female Germ Cells in the Mouse,' Radation Research 58. p. 91.
Adult fema?e mice were maintained on tntium lewis 8.5,0.85 and 0.065 CVml of body water from day of fertilization. In female offspring egosed to tntium from conception and sacnficed at 14 days, pnmary cocytes were decreased below control number by 90% at 8.5, and significantly at 0.085 level.
y
Cmuss Awmum Nnwon I
BIBUOGRAPHY i
15 D.T. Goodhead and H. Nikjoo,
- Current Status cl Ultranoft X ray and Track Structure Analysis as Tools for Testmg and Dewloping Biopysical Models of Radiation Action? Aadial. Prot Oos. 31, No.1/4 (1990):
343 352.
Authors condude that ultraeon X-rays are more s#ectiw than equal doses of hard X-rays. Their RSE4 incmase with decreaseg X ray energy down to wry small track lengths of 7 nm. Low energy electron track ends am a predominate cause of mil inactivation in all low LET radiations. (Ultrason X. rays are wry similar in energies and track lengshe to intium B radiation).
16 Kirchman, et af, *1973 $tudies on the Food Cham Contamination by Trrtium? In Tntium, editors Moghesu and Cater, Messenger Graphics, Phoenix, AZ, US.
Tntiated yau eaten by cows has been shown to be effectively transfened to their milk. OBT levels in their milk weev 10 times higher in cows fed on intiated grass than cows fed on HTO.
3 17 D. Macintosh,5. Lung, F. Tsai and 1. Spengler, *A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Human Emposure to Tritium Emiulons from the Yankee Asomic Electric Company Nuclear Power Facility Located Near Rowe MA.* Harvard University School of Phlic Heakh, Dept. of Emironmental Heskh 7 (1*93).
Graduate students, under the sgervision of J. Spengler, conducted a preliminaiy neessment of potential exposures arW doses to the Deerfleid ther Valley residents to tritium, released from the I; owe nuclear power reactor. Concentrations of tritium were found to be 1,000 time yester in the valley $an the surrounding area. Researchers sugested hat an investigation be undertaken to sudy the eGects of o'Banically bound tritium. the e#ect of the etwr rapids and falls on HTO evaporation, and 08T aerosollsation.
18 J.W. Laky, et af, "Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low-Levels of Tntium on dw F2
,, Generation.' Aadiation Research 56, (1973) : 171.
Research done on e#ects of low level exposure to trillated water. Continues exposure calculated as whole body done roles 3 to 3,000 mrade/ day produced a 30% reduction in adult F1 male testes, but no impairmest in growth or mproductiw ability. Statistically signeficant effects on F2 neonates wwe:
J reduction in relative brain weight, deevened body weight, decraaned liner size and increased resorption.
Brain and testes contained approximately 100% and 50% greater tntium activities than the awrage in other tissues.
19 j.W. Luky, and 5J. Bursian, Radiation Research 67, (1976) : 314 Rats were esposed to constant 'ritium activities of 10 vCl/mi of body water for 42 days begmning first day of pregnancy or birth. In males exposed from birth or first day, there was a significant reduction in the testes vreight and sperm content. In females egosed here was a sigmficant reduction in F2 litter size and an incmane in the number of reabsoebed embryos The group most sensitiw to low level exposure was tne one exposed from first day of pregnancy.
20 DJ. Mowissen,
- Cumulative Cerwtic Effects from E90sure to Male Mice to Tritium for Ten Generations?
LAEA Symposium on Biological fmplications of Radionucl6 des Released from Nuc!eae Industries, (1979).
Data established the existence of cumulative genetic injury and the existence of cumulative genetic injury at the 9th generation. Their F2 oWapring (unexposed) exhibited a significant increase en dommar t lethal mutations resultmg in a decmase in litter size.
21 T. Straume, %alth Risks from E 4sure to Tntium? UCRL-LR.105088, Lawwence Ln ermcn Laboratory, 4
Liwemom, Califomia, US 94550,(1991).
Tntium is more hazardous to health than other types of low leval radiation. Tntlut, is about 1.5 times as carcinogenic,2 5 times as mutagenic, and 2 times as teratogenic, t
-s.
Cmzius Anituiss Nirwon BIBUOGRAPHY 22 C. Tisiajar.Lontulis, P.Hennenberg and L.E. Feinendegen, 'The Owygen Enhantement Ratio for Single and Double Strand Breaks induced by intium incorporaged in DNA of Cultured Human 71 Cells. Impact on the Transmutation Eflect.' Radetion Assearch 94,(1983): 4150.
Researchers found that a 6ied of single strand DNA breaks caused by th6 decay ciintrum in 6-thymidine were due to transmutation. This is over and above the radiational eflect.
23 M. Van Hees, et af, ' Retention in Young Pigs of OST Civen During Pregnancy and Lactation.* Radiet.
Prof. cbs.16, no 1 2, (1971) : 123126.
Pigs fed with tntiated food themeehes became intiated. They panned on tretium to their offspnng. The blood, heart, and kkineys of the young pegleu were more intiated the the tritiated foods fed their mother.
24 H. Wasserman, and K. Solomon, ' Killing Our Own," N.Y. Dell. (1982) t 190193.
There is a long resedency pertad in the body of very low concentrations of trMium. A 1981 study of former American atomics wodiers showed a majordy wMh tritium levels still ten times above normal. Study found that tr6tlum can remain in the body for up to ten years.
Low 4evel Radiatiori 15 K.F Saverstock, D. Pagneorth, and ), Vennart, 'Riek of Radiation at Low Does Rates.* Lancet,1, (1961) :
430 433.
Researchers studk j workers imolved in assemblage of instrutnent. dials rt.ade luminescent with radium.
Significance found for breast cancer induced by gam na radiation. Egasure at rose of 0.1 rad per a hours,
.. allowing adequate time for repair from esposure. Ahhough the luminlaer appears to be a high done study, it demonstrates the inability of the body to adequaieh repair after exposure to low level radiation.
26 M.A. Bender, *$lydcance of Chromosome Abnormalities."(1984): 281289 in boice.
Sender investigated the repair of chromosome bmaks incuned through egoours to radlaison. In discuulng mpair of chromosome breaks, he reports repair half 46mes which are 'typicas of the order of 1 or 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.'
27 L.W. Brackenbush, and L.A. Brady, 'Microdosimetric Basis for Exposure Limits." Health Physics SS, (1968):251 255.
Researchers state that *Since most cells repair radiation damage with a characteristic time ranging from a few minuses to a few hours, it is evident that insparable or mispaired damage must dominate the low-LET radiation effect at low done rates."
28 l.D. Broes, et af, 'A Donage Response Curve for the one Rad range: Adult Risk for Diagnostic Radiation.*
Amer. Jour. Pub. Health,69, no. 2, (1979).
Bross investigated the effects of diagnoeric medical trunk X rays on 220 men with non lymphatic leukemia and 270 controls. Research sugests that most heart disease is ' prompted
- by radiatson exposure. The doubling done of radiation for kukemia to be 5 Rems.
29 Sidrwy Cobb, MD MPH., ' Health in the Deerfield River Valley. Some Preliminary Looks,' (9/29/1992).
Dr. Cobb analyzed raw health statistics on the Deerfield River Valley to determine whether a full epidemiological investigation should be undertaken. cobb investigated available data for cancer incidence, Down syndrome, and mortality. He found a 50% greater overall mortality, a 50% gruter mortality from cancer (5), a 40% gmater mortality in heart disease, a 70% greater mortality from *other" causes in the Deerfield River Valley. There was suggestive evidence that there might be an excess in Down's syndrome. His conclusions were that the health problems deserve immediate atwntion. These problems were consistent with radiat6on injury incurred between 1960 and 1972. --,
e Gmms Amisiss Nirwon BIBUOGRAPHY 30 HJ. Evans, K.E. Bucleon, C.E. Hamilton and A. Cannhws, 'Itadiation-induced chromosome abberacon nuclear.dockyasd wohers.' Natus, 277, (Dec.1979) : 531 534.
Researchers demonstrated a significant i 4 O increase in chromosome abberations in penpheraf blood leulocyte chromosomes e a population of monieomel nuclear.Jockyard workers, subject so occupational radiation egosure w6 thin masimum perminuble limits 5 vom por year. The observed mcease in dkontre abberations is not large be is a direct egression a(increased genetic damage caused by radiation egoswe. It is poes6te to doesct a bolog6 cal eNect at the chromosome levol to iont radiat6on below the inesmationally areed masimum poemissible levels.
i 31 L.E. Feinendogen, of al, *giochemical and Celluf er Mechanisms of Lev.Does Radiaison lifects.*
Anaernationalfoumalof Radistkoi, #Aoingy 53, no.1,(19001 23 21.
Researchers studled the ability olieradlaeed cells lo repait Ud.:n Fomendgen states, 'Wheioas the majoney of single.earand beans and base changes as wry senciendy and quickly sepahed w less ihan 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, the recxmetitution of a doele-strand beak probably lases rnuch longer, perhaps up to wwrel hows, and not all doele.arend b.eans em bl#r speared.'
32 J. Centry, et al, 'An 2pidemiologkal Study of Congemtal Malformations in New York 5 tate ' Amer. J P4 Health,49, no. 4,(4/1959).
Corigenital maldormation rates were studied in assoctrdon with high and low beclyound amas in N YoA Sease. The aeons win the highest bachyound reosation had me hidiset rates of malformatio For unt6lsely rural amas the rate was 12.5. there was a relationship between malformation rat water from wells and up mgs as opposed to large neface areas (!aises and thers). A doeling of the peevalence of seveev mental retaedesion was inund. Them was also a sharp increase in Down's e,. im AEC estimates that bactyound radiation lewis associated widtigneous rock
.. fromatione ranged from.07 => 11 RenWyr.
231440.
33 D.T. Goodhead, ' Spatial and Temporel D6eeribution of Energy.' Nes/n Meysics,55, (1988) :
Goodhead studied the ability of cells to sepair themselves after esposure to radiation. He suggests $at t sepair system may teed a ' kick
- ti get saaeted He states: '...it is conceivable that the cell would r
=lat6wly mom e#iciendy at ihme ween enovo damage to stimulate !n repair process."
34 A.J. Crosovsky, and J. Little, ' Evidence for linear toeponse for the induction of mutations in the human cells by X. rey egosun, below t o reds.' Proc. Nas(. Acad. Scf., USA Cenetics 82, tapril 1985) 2092 2095.
The inducion of Wuaguanine resistance was studied in continuous human lymphoblast cultures exposed to daily X re y egoewes of 1,2.5,5 or 10 rods for penads up to one month. The edects of small daily fractions were addettve suggesting that doses as small as 1 rad ave muagonic in human lymphoblasts. A liner increase in mutation frequency was observed owe this done range with no apparent threshold.
lleeults suggest that for human !,../P the mutagonic nok o(low does of X. cays can be accurasely set 6 mated by linear eserapolation (vom high dnee eNocs.
35 M. Otake, and W. Schull, 'In usero egosure to A. bomb rad 6ation and mental retanfation; an aswament 3ritish jour. Radiol., 57, (May 1964) 409 414.
Osalie arid Schull stud 6ed the incidence of rnental retardation in japanese A. bomb survivors. They found eat the Sih through the 15th week of gestation was especialif signaticant. Implicapon that I rad abeorbed by the fetus ductag thee period may doubie the rase of mental rwedation.
-it-
I Cmuss Annmss Nmon BlBUOGRAPHY M A. Upton, *Provention of Work.Related injuries and Disease: Lessons from Exponence with lonizing Radiation.' Amw. Jour. indust Med., (1987) : 300 301.
Upton anatyred the *Wects of ionismg radiation and the incence of broad cancer in women from dderent sources, i.e., A-bomb radiate therapeut6c irradiation for postpartum mastitis, multiple nuoroecopic examinations, euposure occupationally to extemal gamma radiation in the painting of luminous clock and dials. Upton mates that 'The similanty of the dose-incidence relationships in all four poups of wornen, in spite of marleed diNorences....in the duratiori of suposure, implies that the carcinoymic e#ect of a small does on the tweast is largely irreparable and that the e#ect of succesun doses am additiw,' He states *....there may be no throehold in the dose-incident relationship.'
37 C. Waldron, et al,
- Measurements oilow levels of X ray mutagenesis in relation to human diwane."
Cenetics,8314839-4843.
Waldron and coworlers studied the direct measurement of the eNocts of low doses of radiation and other mutagens, fxtrapolation procedures were not used to estimate eNects. The date demonstrate 'that the true mutapenesis oficiency at low doses of lonizing radiation that approulmate human exposures is more i
than 200 times greatse :hait those otWained arith corwentional me6ods.' With increasing does, a point reached, where the mutational e#ect can not be detected in the chromosomes because the cell is killed o# Unequivocal mutapnosis took place for does as low as 2.4 reds. Waldren states that "obeefvod mutational e#6clency at low dosse is considerably higher than that obserwd at higher doses."
I i
l
Omiss Awuistis Nmen G_0SSA1Y A activi'r - N aumb of atom $ of a r*d**cth Sub$tance that dismiesrat' Per umt time.
ait invweien - A condition nn which a dense substance lies over a lew dense substance. In an atrnos.
phone temperature inversion, the air temperature increases and therefore the density decreases with height. Such inversions occur locally in very still air and tend to be stable because nsing air, warmed at the surface, loses its buoyancy and is trapped when it meets air at the same temperature and denti.
ty as itself so tending to reinforce the irtversson. Pollutants entering the air close to the ground 'evel are similarly trapped, and so temperature inversions are nnmetimes associated with severe pollution incidents.
alpha particle - A pos6tively charyd pamcle emetted by certa 6n radioacthre material consisting of two neutrone, and two protons, the nucleus of a heltum atom. A danprous carcinogen when inhaled or ingested.
atom - The smallest unit of an element, consist 6ng of a dense central, positiwly charged nucleus sur.
rounded by a system of electrons. N structure is usually electrically neutral and is indivisible by chemical re:ctions, atomic nucleus - W core of an atam, cornposed of protons and twutrons.
atomic wasee Itadioactive sold pies and contaminated liquids pecduced by nuclear reactions.
Generetty classed as high, insermediate, or low leet wage, dependent on cure per litwr count.
B backround redW - Ambant radiaton fmm outer space Icosmk and matenals f=nd at the surface of the earth, beta - A type of radiaton twta emittee - A radioactive element charactented by its beta radiation.
twta particle - A high energy electron emitted by decay in a radioacts nuc!eus. Can cauw skm bums and, when ingested, cancer.
C caecinogen - A cancer causing substance or agent.
A m! drends -
curiae - (radiation umts). Umts of rneasurement used to express the activity of a rad 6onuclide and the dose of ionizing eadiation.
D decay - Cmdual dis 6ntegration of radioactm matenal over time.
DNA - (doorynbonnucleic acid). N genetic matenal of most livmg organisms which is a major con-statuent of the chromosomes withm the cell nucleus and plays a central role m the determmation of hereditary charactenstics.
dose The amount of energy absorbed in a unit mass, organ, or individual from irradiation.
Down's syndrome - A congemtal condition characterited by mental deficency and related to the tnpling of certain human chromosomes.
E
- - L'ed di'chP 'mm
- auci*u'-
effluerv pathway - Flud emitted from a source. A waste fluid produced by an agneuttural or industnal process.
electron-A negatiwly charged atomic particle, lighter than a proton or neutron.
. 'i. 4i-A branch of medical science that deals with the incidence, distnbution and control of dis.
ease in a populatbn. _
I t
btNs AWARENelNetwou t
i.
Gl.OSSAKf l
1 i
t esioingy-All of ew cauen of a dinase or abnormal condmon.
synene - sang meosed a redimion.
1 none.-n spituing w a nucleus one ano sagen sraynene, accea, ued by e. roieme of on ca-ty or as a e;m. of p
seaersity one or more nousons. Fieenan can occw oisher,
abeo, tion of a nauhon.
l sheevowspe - An Inserument used dnedy in Ire lustry and med6 cal diagnoels for obs l
envense of apa,= ableen (m me fivias bedri.
l seet e.d - A single tube of cladding Alled wah wenium fuel pellen.
gemene rey - Hip energy, short wavelengei, electromagnetic redation emised l
g headik -n= time a ian= for har of aar r=*=ctw ahaaace m onsinegra. haw 4hus ruge h H
onds a munions of yem.
l len - An amm, molecule, o,i.aq pnscle em hm las or pi l
+
pined or= or mos electons.
leadeselon -The procnes of addhg or removing electons so as e fonn tons. lonis I
high immperennes, elece6 cal discharge, or nucien %
lesdaing nesReden - Alpha, been, or gamme radiation, which, wher, penning W lontaing radiation can cause coE demey as it paseos W useus.
' arvedeced - Having been a,oned m or wesend wish radiation.
losespo - A radioactive variant of a common eleme=ies with a diferent asom 4
atomic number. W. are generally emeted by the fu psocaes.
i loseset pos6ed-The amount of eispeed tone between esposure and he first sign of dis
(,
IowJseel - lleiers to radioactivey of low innersity.
mieredesiasstry - Dosimetry involving microdoses of radiation or minues amounts of i
llsj maeortals.
1 snigirem [mel - One thoaandth of a mm.
seeissule - A youp of atoms held together by chemical forces, senegenen-See Down's syndrome ausserism - A sudden varianon; cepting defiering from its parenes in one or more due ao changes wtehin the doomoessne or the gone.
a=u'rir'* -^ ****amic P*'ticle of neglilable meer, named by Enr6co Fermi.
N noenren - An uncrimped particie in the nuosus of every asom heavier than h,Q uneemble. With half Ide a( 13 minuses, a will decay into a proson, electron and a neuwin
". - Failure of two chromosomme to separen C - M. m meta phase in me6osis
__ "= that one daugheer con ha boe/and se over, neaher of vu dwomosomes.
suscude - Any atom that emnes for a measurable length of time. A nuclide ca i
weept, a omic number, and energy state.
a
= 18 -
~
.._=.
g.
i Gmms Awamiss Nirwon r-Gl.OSSARY O
eay* - An es w= muuraion: a kmak samcocy=.
organiedy bend - Held in chemical or physical combination.
photon - A
- packet" of energy wkh energy with no man, which traw d
range from very low enerpes (such as infrared and vishle lip), mod p
X-raysl to high energy (gammal.
l e is transferred to a
, __- j water reacter [PWRj - A reactor in which the heat f ondary Circus peduces steam for the generators.
peseen - A elementary particle with a single posdive charge that is a
'ed - ^ **"" d '"Pwm 2, w the abwebed dm d radiatbn.
R red weste -radioactrve wasse.
redlefien' - The eminion of neutrons, alpha part6cles, beta or gamma rays fro bl l atter; abbreviated from tem - The unit measuring an absorbed dom of ionlaing radiation in io ogica m
'Reentgen Equrvaien, Man.'
W
=a x rere - hon racwen) lonizing radiauon d low pea **atias poww, usual S
x-reys d long wavelength.
- 1", terstroyanic -(teratrogen) Any environmental factor that ac
^' c' - The transformation d one element into anoter by bombardment of nu cles. For taample, plutonium is obtained by the neutron bombardmert of uranium, t._ r-treen - A radioactive nuclear by-product, also known as Hh consisting of a proton, with two additional twutrons.
e".
_.._.__.___.__..._..._._.__..______.__._.__._.__.-_._.___s._
ExMvY3
- 6 aassi/absAffhit)
Ebe 4 3Das
.)
$ 1NIDAY, NLY 19.1997. NEW LONDON I
i
. NRC finds Connecticut Yankee's radiation control program lacking NOVCmber inC1' dent
""" 6' 'dd""" 6da" 'h' ' '"'
d*""ers or roointion inhaied on ount can be safely decomminstoned, a fed. particles and other airborne deorts, eral regulator Wd Friday.
White said. Because of past accidents uncovered miStakCS John White, a redtation pmtection at the plant involvins news in the Common at plant Om"ia1,**,td ingi,gu';'gr 9"*'k e 0'in"ifmiol'iL%""y,'!'O e
"e i,
agency in the wake of the November radiation that can be a health threat pagg,cosoneesses incident have shown that the mis-even if inhaled in small amounts. Yet Day maff Writer takes that caused the accident were until the recent mishap. plant opera-common at the Connecticut Yankee tors showed no sensitivity to that
~
IGag of Pnsonia Ps. - A Nov. 2 tr, plant. White made the comments aner particular concern, he said.
cident in which two workers wete a twhour meeting held at the exposed to high levels of radiathm agency's Region I headquarters here.
During the nKeting ofncials Dom highlighted serious weaknesses in the Given the history of the plant.om-
[o"util ey a
E' indlation control program at Con-cials at Cannecticut Yankee should necticut Yankee. weaknesees that have been particularly sensitive to the h N oet MP 4
4 CNeons Awareness Network 54 Old Tumpihe Rd.
Haddam, CT 06438 l
O
~
Connecticut Yankee must correct radiation program before dismantling From Al tenance supervisor and a nuclear Neither the NRC nor NU has re by step.*
- Felgenbum said e' aire. "'mhere they can see first hant -
they are taking to better protect refueling specialtst, insg'ected a cm-vealed the Identity of the two work-It is the same type of mentality a dafterent way of doing things,*
morhers Ihms overesgmaura to radt-nal adjacent to the rese.or. During era.
that contributed to problems at the Sexton aald.
attori 1he Haddam plant was rcs. refuelings. the canal is Gooded and White said a recent NRC investi-three Millstone planta, all shut down 1he eight NRC omclals, who sat manently cleaed in December. Ist a the highly radioactive fnael rods are sat 6on of radiation control at Con-because of aerlous regulatory and across a board room table troen their plant cumtaminated by N years of snowed through it to the apent Anal necticut Yankee showed the slip-procedural violations-sla NU counterparts, appeared sat
>perathm, the an's hasulk g of re-puol.
shod approach that led to the acci Mellor, who snanaged the de-lefled with the progress snade at the 36oactive matettal will be a usudor Severn! mistakes were smade slur-dent was monunon at the plant. A commissioning of Yankee Rowe in plant. But considerably more mas k issue in its dismantling. White sand.
Ing the laspecinosa. No radiatlast snonth after the incident, the NRC Rowe. Mass., before his arrival at will need to be done before Contwet Re-se Mellor, director of sise oper.
survey of the area was done prior to reviewed the procedures that were Connecticut Yankee, said all prors.
Scut Yankes gets the 30 ahead to de-attons and decomm6ssioning, mand the entry of the workers.1 hey were followed when two divers were sent dures are twing reviewed. Techsd-commlaston. maid James T. H6ssins.
that the cosapany espects to coun-no respirators to protect them fresa lato the spent fuel pool for main
- clans are being told they have to foi.
director of reactor safety for the plete sta plan for the 8425 mi!!6on inhaling debria A permit, authorts-pance work. White said Le that case. low those procedures. If they have a NRC.
decomsninskming by Sept, I. The Ing them to pick up aan.Il pleas of like the canal incident, promdures question er if mosnething does not Omclals also discussed the Feb. 26 company wants to dissaantle the debris, was poorly denned. The snen were not properly fonowed and, in make senas, they arv to stop and incident in which video equipenent nuclear plant and return the site on ended up psching up three pounds, aosne instances, west pcorly written. acek clar1Rcation, Mellor said.
was returned by plant workers to an the Connecticus River to a " green some ofit highly radiated.
The report based on the reent
-We etw estabitaking a higher Osweso. N.Y., business, only to be flend "
As a result of these arters the men investigation is pendlag. White said.
standard of espectatlana and ponting found contaminated a6th low levels fiut unless tha NRC la canvtared were esposed to material that was McDor, who NU hired in March to them throughout the plant he said.
of radiation. The NRC was con-groper radiatlost cxatrols are in emitting radiat6asi each hour that help correct its problesas, said an Richard Sentosa, manager of health cerned it may not have t;een an iso-e tnat wask cannot begin.
was 32 tames the legal wort er espn-131ernal coaspany review drew the physics, said the qualtitcations of all lateJ incident.
.se 1935, the most rewns year for sure for a year. The cxmSmination saur.s conchaetona.Too often. he sold, technicians were reviewed and sonne While cornpany omclats gave no
.hach data is available. Connecticut was discoveied when alarsas there were ao procedures for a cer-were rmW Enginwrs are also aneuranm it hasn't hppemd be.
Yankee workes,s had tr.: third high.
sounded as the workers emerged tain work assignrnent, poor prore-being rotated to the Seabrook Nu-fore. Sexton said an 'nternal review est average radioactive dose, behlM froaa the canal.
dures or a latlure by workers is clear Power Station in tkw Hamp-by NU concluded the a there is only a only &taine Yankee ami Mt!!ssone 3 Even after they were exposed, comply witit the standards that did in WaterforJ. w hach toppres the itst.
54oper procedures were ignored. eu sst.
Yet neither the NRC nor North Mucus and fecal samples, whkh Ted C. Felsenbaum, chief nuclear low probability the, materkt with east Utilities recogniard Cainecticut would have gsven an indication of omcer for the plant, aald workers signtDcant levels of radiation has vankee as a gwohlem plant uned the inte Tial exposure, were not taken.
felt meeting the intent of the prore.
been referned from the site.
.s 2 tacident. Up to
- hat time. the Ntra analysis concl.aded that the dares mas enough Connecticut Yankee, which gh levels uncre attributed in the snen did not rerelve a radiation es-tt)ften they had the snentality opened in 1968. 15 owned by the
,ge of the p!***t anJ les olden tech.
posure beyond the legal tamit. The that: *We know what we're doing-Connecticut Yankee Atoanic Power
- smlogy, NRC is having its own esserts ana.
W-know how to do this. We don't Co. NU controls te percent of the have to foDow these procedures step l companw the y sham On Nov. 2. two workera, a unein-lyse the health rtsks of the incident.
93
~-
SY
g4 (7h? h.SS/NlSkhClh
- ~
CONNECTICUT YANKEE EXTENDS CUTAGE 60 DAYS DUE TO FUEL ROD DAMAGE Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. has calended the outage at Connecticut Yankee by two months in order and recons 6tute the fuel assemblics. B&W is inspecung to repair 213 leaking fuel rods in 67 assemblics. ns un-and repairing the fuel rods and has brought in 10 addi-usually large number of defective fuel rods is being at-tional workers, said Miller. Only one or two assemblies tnbuted to dny debris left in the prtmary system from can be reconstituted each day with the work being done in previous outage work.
the spent fuel pool under 26 feet of water. To replace the.
"It's rare for Connecucut Yankee to have any leaking defective rods, the utility is planning on using the 204 fuel fuel pins,"said Alan Wang NRC project manager.
rods in an assembly that was damaged about four years He and stadon superintendent Donald Miller both said ago, if this fuct assembly hadn't been available, the out-pinhole leaks in the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) fuel rods age could have been longer because B&W would have appear to have been caused by metal Bakes left over frora had to make new fuel pins.
a job done on the thermal shield during the 616-MW Uul ty staffers have not yet determined whether they Westinghouse PWR's last outage. The flakes, the largest will repair or remove the thermal shield, which is 22 years of which is the size of a fingernail, apparently caused old and not considered essential to the u*it's opersoon.
nicks and some throughwall cracks in the fuel rods.
NRC staffers said that there could be a dedgn problem Both Miller and NRC staffers suggested the Bakes with the changes the utility made on the thermal shield in came from repair of core support barrel thermal shield at-1987. Other corrective actions could include trying to tachment devices in 1987. To decrease vibrations, the strain out any remaining metal particles before restart.
uuli y installed spacers between the thermal shield and the Until the leaking rods were discovered, the entical t
core barrel. Workers had to grind out little grooves m the path for this outage had been constructing a new thermal shield to accomplish this task. To clean up the switchgear building to meet NRC 6te protection rules.
metal flakes "they did a lot of 61tering and they thought The utility was also adding a new line of pipe and about they got everything, but obviously some (metal flakes) got 20 related valves connecting the residual heat removal hung up," said Wang.
system discharge to the high pressure coolant injection Connecticut Yankee has not yet completed its root
.ystem's suction, to increase the latter system's rectrcula.
cause analysis, which is expected to take about a month' 6,on capability.
and the utility may call in one contractor for assistance, Connecticut Yankee is in the process of getting a Utility staffers have not yet calculated the cost of licen e to replace stainless steel fuel rods with ones rnade.
replacement power. but they noted they are not now in a with zircaloy. It is one of the last plants to convert to tir-g g g g, g gg,y,fA peak usage period.
y The outage, originally scheduled from September 2 to st:ctrosics w t.tx -ooen E 19p November 2. will be extended unut January 1990 to clean 9
w
- - - -Exhibit ir- -
' dONNECTICUT YANKEE DELAYS RESTART UNTIL APRIL DUE TO FUEL C2D DAMACE Connecdcut Yankee Atomic Power Co. has entended caused by metal Aakes left cver from e job done on the the outage at Connecdcut Yanks.e until at least April 1990 thermal shield during the 616 MW Weadnghouse PWR's because fuel rod damage is more catensive than originally last outage.The Aakes, the largest of which is the size of a thought.The utility has also decided w remove the ther.
Angernail, apparendy caused nicks and some cracks.
mal shieli. The unit was scheduled to retum to service in The Askes came from repair of core support barrel January after the utility had previously catended the out.
thermal shield attachment devices in 1937 To decrease age two months to repair leaking fuel rods (NW,26 Oct.,
vibrations, the utility installed spacers between the ther.
9).
mal shield and the core barrel. Workers had to grind out Connecticut Yankee had undercsdmated how lons it little grooves in the thermal shield to accomplish this task, would take to reconstitute the fuel rods because there are and some Aakes were not Altered out.
more damaged fuel rods than esdmated in October, said NRC staffers said that restart could be delayed until Louis Keezing, a.,tility spokestnan. In November, staffers June 1990, depending on how quickly the reconsdtudon esdmated the repairs on the fuel rods would cost $9 mil.
can be done. The utility needs to pull out the leaking pins, lion, which did not include removing the therma' nield.
test the pins adjacent to the leakers, and take a random Current repair costs and replacement power fuel costs sample of the used fuel pins in other areas, which could be were not available.
damaged, said NRC project manager Alan Wang, Seventy.
NRC staffen said that Connecticut Yankee has 343 five percent of the darnaged fuel pins have been in the fuel rods in 88 fuel assemblies with throughwall cracks outer two rows of the assemblies, Wang noted. "It's a pretty tedious process," he noted.
NUct.EoNics wtEx - Dmmtier sI, les*
The 10. to 12.fect long therr tal shield will have to be cut up in three sections to remove it and later cut into smaller pieces for disposal. This process is time consum.
ing, even though Westinghouse and Power Cutung lac, will help cut the shield. Removing the thermal shield will be less costly, Ume-consuming, and in the end more teli.
able and effective than repairing it, said Keezing.
During the extended outage, originally scheduled from September 2 to November 2, Connecucut Yankee is cleaning and reconstituting the fuel assemblics. Babcock
& Wilcox (B AW) has already inspected and repaired about 30 of the 104 fuel assemblies that needed inspec.
tion, said Wang. Only one to two assemblies can be reconstituted each day with the work being done in the spent fuel pool under 26 feet of water. The udlity is plan.
mng on using the 204 fuel rods in an assembly that was damaged about four years ago. If also plans to buy eight new assemblies from B&W and use some of the un.
damaged assemblies that have a similar burnup to the ones taken out.
Other older plants, such as Northeast Utilities' Millstone.2 and Florida Power & Light Co.'s St. Lucie.1, have had their thermal shields removed.The shleids are not essential to the units' operation. Southern California Edison will inspect San Onofre.I's thermal shield sup.
ports and repair them if necessary dnring a mid-cycle out.
age in the summer of 1990. The utility found eracks in three bolts in late 1988.miennffer Nekon, New York
.,_.,_,_..m,
fo &ssusc Affdad o
em
'[
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REOUI.AT' RY COMMISSION
' OFFICE OF NUCLEAR 4EACTOR REGULATION WASHINGTrnt riry%
0555 0001 June 20, C.47 q
s
'NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 97 36: UNPLANNED INTAKES BY WORKER OF TRANSURANIC AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AND EXTERNAL EXPOSURE DUE TO INADEQUATE CONTROL OF WORK -
Addressees All holders of operating hcenses and construction permits. AJ licensees of nuclear power reactors 6n the decommissioning stage and fuel cycle licensees.
I Purpose The U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissbn (NRC)is issuing this information notice to alert licensees to inadequate radiological work controls in highly contaminated areas. These inadequate controls created a subctenbal potentia, for personnel radiation exposures in excess of NRC limits and resulted in unplanned intakes by workars of airbome radioacleve matanals, including transuranics (alpha emitters), it is expected that recipients wi!Ireview the information in this hotice for apphcabihty to their facihties and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems. However, suggestions contained in thit nformation notice are not NRC requirements; therefore, no i
specific action or written response as requ' red.
Oescription of Circumstances On November 2,1996, the Haddam Neck plant was in a refuehng ano rnaintenance outage. Before flooding the reactor cavity, the fuel transfer canst (FTC), the -
fuel transfer cart and tracks, and the upender needed to be inspected and debris removed to ensure cleanhness.
In preparation for the inspection and entry to the FTC, two workers (a maintenance supervisor and a reactor vendor representative) met with health physics (HP) supervisors and HP technicians (HPTs) to discuss the entry. As this work was not on the master outage schedule, this was the first notice to HPTs of the work. The 9oveming work procedure provided no work scope detail.
The meeting was not effective; there was no common understanding between the workers and the HPTs as to what work was to be done and the radiological conditions in the work area" The HPTs mistakenly believed that the workers would pnncipatty walk along the FTC tracks but could periodically leave the tracks to pick up debris (e g, tie wraps) that had fallen down from the charging floor The HPTs did not know that the workers would collect, by hand, paint chips, metal rust, and dned, dirthke matenals from the floors and walls.
9706170322 IN 97-36 June 20, t997 e
7
.. +
)
Page 2 of 5 Just before the entry, the HPTs bnefed the workers on the radiological conditions. Since the FTC was decontaminated in August 1996, the workers were led to believe that the canal was generally *ctsan.' The licensee had not performed any prework contansnation or radiation surveys to support the job.
(uge s later found that the FTC contained removable contamination of up to g
800 mictogfey/h (80 miitirad/hr) (beta / gamma) and 500 Bq [30,000 disintegration 6 per minute) per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm2) alpha contamination. In addrtion, a local hot spot on the canal floor, readdy accessible to tha worners, exhibited extemal radiation levels of 250 mSv/h
[about 25 R/h) f a contact and 80 mSv/h [about 8 R/h) at waist level. The prework bnefing of the workers was inadequate, and the workers were not informed of the actual radiological conditions. Additionally, the work was allowed to coir,mence under an invalid (because it did not allow FTC entry) radiation work permit (RWP), rather than a specific RWP for fbs FTC. As a result, no compreheris:ve, prework radiation or contamination surveys were performed. The decision not to issue respiratory protection was based on previous air sample results (after the August 1996 reactor cavity decontamination to support worker tours of the area). He vever, this dated sampling was not representative of the extensive debns cleanup activity on November 2,1996.
e While in the FTC, the workers scraped up debris from the FTC and placed it in a plastic bag Unknown to the workers, this activity generated significant airbome radioactive matenals and created a high-intensity ertemal radiation l
source After completion of the work, one worker's dostmeter alarmed upon esiting the l
reactor cavity. The plastic bag of debns was surveyed for the first time s'.d toad 200 mSv/h [about 20 R/h) on contact (it was placed in shielded stolage).
A later survey of the bag indicated 600 mSv/h [about 60 R/h) on contact and l
about 40 mSv/h [about 4 R/h) about 30 centimeters away. The workers wore no l
additional dosimetry other than their electronic alarming and standard chest thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) The worners found significant contamination, while whole-hody insking. Nasal smears of the workers indicated 3333 Dq [?00,000 dpm)(beta / gamma) shortly after exiting the cavity.
Subsequent to the event, the licensee determined (by analysis and reconstruction) the workers' deep-dose equivalent (DDE), the shallow-dose equivalent (SDE. who'e body), the maximum doses to the extremities, and the lens dose equivalent (LDE) from the collection and handling of the debris.
Ncae of the worker's extemal doses were in excess of the limits, with the maximum assigned doses (mSv) of 4.73 [473 mrem). DDE; 4.73 [473 millirem),
SDE.116 [1164 mrem), extremity; and 3 97 [397 mrem). LDE.
With the workers out of the cavity, an MPT checked the FTC air sample using a hand held frisker and found that the sample exhibited an elevated count rate, e
indicating the presence of potential airbome radioactive matenal. M sir sample later indicated about 0.8 derived air concentration (DAC) beta and 24 DAC alpha. The general trea air sample was not representative (not in the breathing zone of the workers) of the concentrations encountered by the l
workers during the debris cleanup.
A backup air sample of the reactor cavity was started, well away (non-representative) from the FTC. The sample was also checked in the field with a difterent (bui defective) hand held IN 97-36 June 20,1997 Page 3 of 5
e Insker, which erroneously indicated rio airbome radioactive matenals were -
present Other HPTs in the area were then notified (misinformed) that the air within the reactor cavity was clean The inspector later found that the licensee had failed to establish and implement an effective program to sdequately check for proper operability of the fnsker in containment.
On the basis of the errcneous negative air sample result, HPTs authortzed two other workers to enter the reactor cavity and clean the reactor vessel stud holes These workers unknowingly spent about 15 minutes in an area with elevated airbome radioactive matenallevels and subsequently exited the reactor ca<rty. Their subsequent whole-body counts showed no significant intakes.
The 1.censee's subsequent counting of the backup air sample prompted identification of the inoperable frisker and subsequent evacuation of the reactor cavity and initiation of an investigation. The backup air sample m found to indicate airbome radioactivity concentrations of 3.5 DAC beta arn.
108 DAC alpha. The air sample collected near where the two workers were working on the reactor vessel studs was later found to indicate 15 DAC beta and 53 DAC alpha. In spite of these air sample results (high alpna DACs).
their non representative nature (not near the FTC), and thi stay-times of the workers and their work practices in the FTC (handling contaminated debns),
the licensee did not recognite the potential for excessive personnel exposure until about a week after the event.
Discussion in the Haddbm Neck event, inadequate radiological evaluations and controts led to unplanned intemal esposures with a substantial potential for worker overeuposures Of more concern was that untilidentified by an NRC inspector five days after the event, the licensee failed to recognize the potential for significant internal doses from transuranic radionuclides known to be present m the FTC. The presence of these alpha-emitting nuclides was evident from loose surf ace contamination sampling (smears) and air samples. This failure led to untimely initiation of in-vitro bioassays (fecal sampling) for the transuranic materialintake to assess personnel exposures. While the whole body counting (WBC) indicated a relatively low intake / dose from cobatt-60, the licensee failed to use the high alpha to beta gamma ratios (from the
. sir and smear samples) to identify the potential for significant iniemal dnses to workers from the transuranic component. When the NRC inspector noted the WBC result for the gamma emitters (power plant WBC's do not detect alpha radiation) and took into account the relative workplace abundance and typical DAC alpha-to beta gamma nuclide ratios, he informed the licensee of the transuranic concem The licensee then initiated fecal sampling to account for dos :, from all nuclides fencluding alpha emitters). The licensee contracted outside consultants to perform a detailed analysis of the event and calculate the workers'intemal dose. On the basis of this effort, the licensee reported a maximum 913 mSv [913 mrem) committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) and 58 7 mSv [5873 mrem] totalorgi.o dose equivalent (TODE) to the bone surface.
None of the reported doses are in excess of regulatory limits. However, the NRC staff is still reviewing the licensee's methods, assumptions and modets for the intema! dose assessment.
IN 97-36 June 20,1997 Page 4 of 5 For reactor facilities that have expenenceClIuel defects, expenence has shown that long after the defective fuel hasteen removed, significant alpha
O O O
i contamination may remain in generally inaccessible locations, t.uch as the FTC equipment drains and sumps, and other refueling areas. Even minor disturbance of the contaminated surf &ces f an result in the release of alpha emitting rad onuchdes, whose DACs are orders of magttLde more restrictive ard hmiting (at much lower concentrations) c6mpared with the normal beta emitting and gamma emitting isotopes usually encountered in reactor plant environments (fission, corrosion, and wear products). Additionalty, alpha contamination may be intorporated into a contamination / corrosion layer on the interior surfaces of system components that carry primary fluids or steam. Surveys for loose surface contamination may not identdy the fixed alpha contamination, but abrasive work (e.g, grinding or welding) may result in alpha emitting airborne radioactive matenals. This latter cnaracteristic may be particularly important at reactor facil4es undergoing decommissioning.
As a result of this event, the hcensee performed root cause analyses. On the casis of these alvses and the findings of an independent review team, the licensee has in, a.d cettain corrective actions, which include the followmg:
1.
All work presenting a significant radiological challenge (within designated high-risk areas) was suspended until a work approval program was instituted This program now requires review of all RWPs by the plant Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) and the Work Services Director, and RWP approval by the RPM of the Rauiological Protection Supervisor.
2, The work control pr> gram now includes an RWP procedure requinc j clear desenptions of authonzed work and controls, improved procedures for high-risk evolutions, and representative prework surveys.
3 The hcense stopped the use of in-field counting and checks for air samples as a basis for reducing or relaxing radiological work controls.
( All work in high alpha-intake risk areas requires the use of respirators until representative air sampling justifies work without respiratory protection, Events involving unplanned intakes of airbome radioactivity at nuclear power plants occur generally dunng maintenance and refuehng outages,Att infrequent, and typically result in intakes by workers of radioactrve material
- th'at'are well within the hmits of 10 CFR Pa 120. However, as indicated in tne event det,,ibe in this notice, the potential for significant unplanned personnel exposures does exist at nuclear power plants (see related correspondtnce).
/
Related Communications and Correspondence The following related communications and correspondence are noted:
NRC Inspection Report No. 50 219/96-12, dated December ig,1996.
IN 97 36 June 20,1997 Page 5 of 5 NRC Information Notice 90 d7," Unplanned Rediation Exposures to Personnel Entremities Due to improper Handkng of Potential Highly Radeoactive Sources," dated July 27,1990.
- Unplanned intakes of Airbome Radioactive Material by Individuals at Nuclear Power Plants.* dated e
e
e = e l
Ncr. ember 12,1992.
This information notice does not require any Specific action or wntien response. If you have any questions about too information in this notice, please contact one of the technica' contacts listed bekP, signed by S H. Weiss for Marytee M. Slosson, Acting Director Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical contacts: Ronald L. Nimitz, R1 (610) ~537 5267 E mail rin@nrc gov William J. Raymond, R1 (860)267 2571 E mail: wir@nre gov James E. Wigginton, NRR 301-415-1059 E-mail: jew 2@nrc gov 9
i 4
0 s
1
^
2{&
93 007 Page,1 of 6 l
AIARA POST JOB COMMENTS SHEET I
This resiew encompassed the segmentation of the RPV internals and support l actisities as well as clean up activities by the segmentation contractor.
ALARA controls in addition to those specified in the ALARA review were adde,d during the segmentation of the RPV internals. Additional water cleanup capacity was r: quired in the fonn of two additional filter units as well as two ion exchangers.:
Shielding or% woe besgLe_necessaMaffle segmentation due to 1 prohibitise dose rates on the bridge.
The cutting sequence whereby segmentation activities progrened from lower to' higher activity components was effective in reducing exposures It became evident that at higher activity components were segmented _and exposure rates increased, tadiation leveis never fully returned to the lower levels pnor to tne mcrease. This cumulatne merease in background radiation levels would have t,cen more of ad exposure hindrance if higher activity componentsitad been segmented earlier irl the process.
As the segmentation process progressed it became evident that "little specs" were being liberated from the STC. These specs became evident in the plavpen_ area on the Tharging floor and evtHmaHy met the plant defimtion of" hot panicles". These specs were not the classic " hot particle",(e.g. fuel fragment or pure Co-60) they werej actuall,s small fragments of segmented components comprised primarily of Fe-55.
,Co 60 and Mn-$4. Their behavior was not as unpredictable as true " hot partic!c{s" due to lower WeTific activities. These "litt!e soecs" were the source of theREPA filter dose rate load _ing in the off gu collection system. " Hot particle" controls were qstablished around the STC impacting productivity. An evaluation of"li implemented in accordanc: with plant procedures and two hourg constituents combmed with new dose limitsTiTEed stay times to be increased t'o three hours while providing assurance of adequate margin with respect to regulatory guidance regarding " hot particle" controls and exposures.
i Contamination control became more difficult when STC water activity levels became elesated later in the project.
l
. j_14 personnel contaminations can be attributed to this project. De majority of'hese
[
t contaminations occurred dung the period of time when the core bafne was being Mand dunng initial STC cleanup activities. Despite frequent i
decontamination efforts and " Hot Panicle Zone 3" controls, contamination levels in work areas repeatedly increased when work resumed. The nature of the work E activines required a combmation of dextenty and visibility which made facial !
contaminations inevitable. The majority of these incidents were classifiD !
accidental or unavoidable given the high activigenneentration in the STC and the M frequency with whicrrw5'rkers were required to mampulate tooHng and l
equipment irrthe water. 46 of the contammation incidents involved g i
I exposurt.s resulting in a total assicnedgrsonrem SDE of about 4.5 rem.
yA002327 I
~
38900968 CAN
@003 j
xN t
93 007 Pagej2 of 6 ALARA POST JOB COMMENTS SHEET Filter consumption was grossly underestimated, resulting in handling exposurest aT5iost ten times _ pcam m.u muhea. vne lilter shipment was originally ^{
' estimated, expending F;'s mreiE"XIbtal of sesen filter shipments were made for 5160 rem The excessive filter generation can Se partially attributed to the poo'r performance of the dross collection system.
r An effectise e posure rate of 1.5 mrem /hout had been used in the ALARA review estimate Through march 1994 the actual effective exposure rate was 1.2 mrem / hour.
E3posure rates increased with elevated water activity levels during baffle cutting.
Qespite the addition of bndge stueldmg and Additional water cleanup capacity the effectis e exposure rate for segmentauon activities at the end of the trotect was 2.3 mrem hour. This was the largest ponion (about 9 remi of the exposure overrun {'
associated mth this ALARA review.
The plasma cutting process generated soluble activity. Bis was not anticipated and required the use of plant punfication as wen as supplemental underwater i
demineralizers
- 4. The off gas hood flotation devices collected activity _from the water and receatedly became an exposure proorem. Changing the flotation matenal to a non-porous type impros ed the problem but was not entirely successful in eliminating this exposure.
Kore than fiftv HEPA filters were removed from the off gas collection system. l These t'iIiers were changeifout on cose rate (-200 mrenvnour on contact; and handled as DAW DP indication across these filters when changed showed no !
sipficant particulate loading.
Segmentation of the baffle resulted in higher than anticipated dose rates on the {
chargmg floor during and after cutgtAt this point work was stopped and condmens were essluated. acamonal controls and hold points were established pnor to continuing with 'caffle cuts.
BlocLace m the_ MTgas suction hose led to an airborne radioactivity problerrten the_
charging floor dunng bafile segmentation A bag had been placed over a hose during i
' amtenancc uf(Hiiifstem and was not noticed by workers reconnecungte hoses.
m Airborne activity levels as high as 1.9E' pCi/c gross beta were experienced on'the l
liharmng floor. Additional controls were implementw to ensure the ventilation '
system was operational pnor to any funher segmentation activities. The VC pur' e g
was in operation dunng this condition and the short lived airborne problem was :
confined to the VC.
{
l The floating skimmer was not used during the project it was believed that this i desice would oni) prove to be a hindrance to work activities given the small size' of I
the YNPS cavity. In retrospect it may have become an exposure problem similar to the off gas hood.
{
i
'YA002320 i
i i
09/27/97 21:16 FAI 4133398768 CAN
@ 004 l
t i
w 93-007 Pagel3 of 6 ALARA POST JOB C05NENTS SHEET i
- Underwater vacuuming was not performed aner the out of PCT cuts and may ha've nnt been physically possible Very little surface area on the STC floor was accessible during the project due 4 the placement of tooling and liners. Es en a partial i
sacuuming effort would _have had significant schedule impact due to the formid5ble k
. task of rearransang the equipment on the U L noor. Cvmrttrating to the decision not to vacuum was the ryommendauon that the lower actSIEccons on me hoor early in
~
the project could be usec as blendmg material for higher activity debris which w:ould be deposited later in the cutting process.
Scrubbing the b'ath tub ring was performed many times _with varying degrees of; success. Thinng had an_ oily sticky consistency. The consistency of the bath tub iiig~was possibly due to the infrequent oiling of the boom used to deliver the torch.
The ring was finally removed by hand wiping with a solvent after the water level w1ts y lowered.
1 Liner loading and cask handling was a repetitive task that project personnel became quite proficient at. Initially, sorge difficulty was experienced withymination_
leachinc from the surface of the submersible cask _ Following a study of this problem a cask surface maintenance plan was implemented. Following implementation of this plan. sixteen submersible cask shipments were made without a problem.
Some difficultv we emerienced maintaining STC Co.60 concentration DE *uCi ml This was due to the slower removal rate ortG soluble species.
Additional cleanup capacity was added when condatont warrmted. The total gamma concen'tranon of <lE'pCi/ml was maintamed as the upper bound for cutting actnities in accordance with the EDCR. A chart of STC activity levels is included in this pa:kage.
The plasma process and associated " gas lin" :ombined with the PCT /DCS desiim liberated far to much actiVitvidebns) to the STC resulung m elevated dose rates over the 5TC due to water activity concentrations and an extremely ditheult, exposure intensn e cleanug The PCT should be a sealed container isolated from the STCj
{
emirons. FC1 doors could be operated hydraulically to aid production. The drots collection system should have enough capacity to provide positive downward flow into the PCT to prevent activity from migrating to the cavity environs. Syk mitimst -
cut'me_ methods that liberate less_ activity to the cavity environs. Consider usingj i
plasma for only low activity components To reduce filter consumption, future projects should consider use ofsubmerged deep bed graduated media pressure vessels for cavity filtration. These liners would be loaded similar to hardware liners with minimal personnel exposure expended. Waste disposal s ariances should be sought ahead of time if necessary.
I A tedesigned DCS and water clean up system should provide the capability for use of this deep bed system as an underwater vacuum. Vacuuming should be performed on l
i
- YA002329 i
g3
.e r
i s
Page!
\\
~
93 007 4 of 6 ALARA POST JOB COMMENTS SHEET j
an as you go basis,in areas that are accessible to provide early indication of potential waste form problems and reduce the immensity of the final clean up.
i i
The segmentation of the reactor intemali resulted in large amounts of fine debris depo tyc on the honzental surfaces of the STC. Components that were in the STC dunng the segmentation process exhibited high exposure rates and high levels of contamination from the debris as well as an adhered film. After completion of the segmentation _ project contact dose rates on the STC floor were in the tensg j 1
hundreds of terrrhour.
To reduce HEPA fi!'er consumption consideration should be given to using sode type e
of cask leaded or remote handled filter which could be dose rate loaded to reduce waste volume, project costs and personnel exposures.
l Alternate ventilation systems should be designed which do not contact the water yet pmude engineering controls for the breathmg zone. Reinoval of this floatmg sdirrce dould reduce personnel exposures.
j Painted carbon steel was used for fabrication of many tools and fixtures. This proved troublesome when these tigrns were hydrolased underwater thus liberatma paint chips y h,hich proTonged cleanup efforts. Future projects should consider using only smool surface matenals for toolmg and fixtures, e g. stainless steel, aluminum and plastics The use of an underwater _hydrolaser was successful in reducing the dose rate on toolink and fixtures to alloWrernoval from the STC. The disadvantage of this was that the actisity was re dispersed to the pool prolonging cleanup activities z
i Used tooling was not considered as project waste in the cask estimating processf Mans components uhibited high dose rates and were exposure intensive to handle in air or not easily disposed of as DAW. Provisions should be made in the waste stream, sepnemation and packaging plan to dispose of tooling as hardwure in underwater liners or as DAW in air loaded liners immediately upon removal from the cavity'.
Waste disposal variances should be sought ahead of time if necessary to allow for minimal handling of dross contaminated tooling.
i AN MQmust for future segmentation erotects to reduce the
! y ditTiculty of the cleanhu task. Vacuummg as the segmentation project progressed m accessioie ucuT6Gd have made the tmal cicanup task somewhat easier and I provided more insight into the disposal difficulties associated with the debris.
i Debris collection media either bags or perhaps deep bed filter vessels should have waste disposal variances applied for in advance to provide for more flexibility in the disposal plan.
l 1
YA002330 l
j A10 m,mm ot Ghibit B-I MARTY PETTY P a dre g p ifad,rae 6aneant JOHN j. ZAKARIAN E9dhd1M Unar,d Page user THE Ot. DEST CONTINUOUSLY PUBLISHED CLIFFORD L. TTUTSCH, M,,wgmg una, NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA ELISSA PAPIRNO, Jtrader Jtgemmer EDITORI ALS A river with a heritage-
~
Entedng the state in EnSM whm a dam but mDes fmm its headwatm at he dny Feh Con-in the early 1800s made its rapids navigable, the. necticut Lake on the C2mdu border to the Sound.
Connecticut River flows through a once-neglect-Questions remain about the plan's remifica-ful state capital th at is at last recapturing its river-tions, but river guardians such as Joseph Mar-front. Ultimately, the waterway spills into Iang fuggi, executive director of Riverfront Recapture, Island Sound near the lighthouse depicted on know enough about them to cheer. He doesn't i
state license plates, expect millions of federal dol-
[
larsflowinginforrtverprojects.
Ever since Adriaen Block But the designation would help sa!!ed up the long tidal river in 1614, and his Dutch people.
groups like his navigate erected a fort at a spot that '
through the murky federal wa-would later become Hartford, ten to find existing aid,he said.
d Heritage Rivers also wouldlike-the Connecticut River has been
- h[
part of the nation's heritage.
7A ly get higherprioritywhencoin.
Soitis fitting that President M
Fy peting for funds, and a federal coordinator would help river dpW Clinton make this waterway R
communities find resources l
one of the country's first Ameri-7r.g /
can Heritage Rivers.
Mpf t and expertise.
^/
sut Objections from.some Mr. Clinton announced re.
4 y
l cently thathe would begin tak.
members of Congress that the 4,
designation would strip away ing applications to designate 10
+
l rivers by early next year.
le=r landowner rights are unwar-
,a - 7 "*
ranted.Heprogramwould rely l
p A steering committee rep-a
' resenting about 25 groups and gi on voluntary partnership be-j 3
- M f
tween federal and localgovern-i communities from the four j-states along the Ccnnecticut b..
River is preparing a 15-page M M$ m f 5
ments that would bring no new mandates or regulations.
1 application.
Q n Mostly,thelabelwould give o J it L Connecticut valuable national 3
he National Audubon So.
i bragging rights.
I ciety in Old Lyme, the Wads.
cem.
worth Atheneum and Just as vacationers flock to l
Riverfront Recapture are h'
the national parks, tourists among the Connecticut groups would be lured to national riv-joining representatives from rn. - c. ers. Itis easytoimagine a travel Vermant, New Hampshire and writer cranking out a guide to Massachusetts to convince the president that the the nation's Heritage Rivers.
river is significant enough historically, socially, And anyone who has hooked an American economically and environmentally to be worthy shad at the Enfielo dam, watched a sunset from the deck of a riverboat near Charter Oak Landing l
of national recognition.
o What a grand example of regional cooperation or spotted a heron off the boardwalk in Old Lyme l
i that so many New England groups are working to-would agree - the Connecticut River is worth gether to keep an eye on this river that flows 410 cherishing.
E>:/uWt B-2 "v%[* //
J 9
9" a :.;;r.".
i k.
sb eA s
v A
m o
r o
g-a I_
' (1
do D OS 4
b w
9 hy
. pp,. h A __
1 g,
4
.y
- r..,,,.s,
.)
h
. \\
{ '.'.
e, d ['
k*
,,r.
C.~n %
- \\
- p. 4
.% g.
is /
0
+ oa
% t i.',.
s, '^#.,ps J.l 5
l*,
Q'1*u: 1 4"c4 Re,. '
- r, et$ G n
3 s,
IIGGANUM %,['. (N 't
,ja'.\\
f t h '.,
/ #.
[I
'a 4
N
%<e.
?!
i o
mr Q 'dk,t y
~
s o
o N
i CENi[R p i 3
g/p'*f4 ofy 3,$u t
..e
' O s
w i
- p s. p
\\q g\\ t g
\\
- f t,
H l /N
- ,rN 'e
.Q t-t' 4
3' A*..
- 4. g. m_ q. ne:..'ly *"
~
w.
\\, t.b,gr g
og f.e <E 4
g s!
'f g
C** * *f '
5 ' {**
\\ %
i k
Y
, $ t a t
- I*" 'h*
h
{
.s N
t DO l f*
I, r
4
] j\\j
, ** ** N Y
Y
%.1 g.. }, c% :,- '*-l b,.
t s
1.,\\
b..
,w,
7 l
Nn. 4
..-t s,,di/,c t:,:\\
o 9
es, ej. !* f W //,
,,a f 1
- 4 v
.o t
?,
- (
,s i
O I
e
.e c r;, ;
,c
.g<* :
..'. 4g' * ;
3
{
- 4.,
, n e..
1
- q.,.y, \\. 9 r
- ..1 1
v
,akp
- kI (82 4
4 t
g 4
^p
':. n.
t a
l.A,.rw% v,,
w
+
..e f,>
- Q. :
p.e :: m,, g.
1 u
i n,,, _.-
yl r
f e,.s.
/
s
%\\
s" A
g.< ::c. m Yr s, L
p.g E.fpto me...
ls
.Q. s p
j 4_ij e
s h
+,,,,,d
..p g,li N
'\\xy%
f
'; % a a f fo sf n w.:. %g i
..'o'.
kjg. og j 9
l
- Iph k
l' h
u.y/
~
Edg it '
P l.E
- ,gg ;l
+
- -4 c
w
,o C
S T
E.
pi i
r.-..,
t 9
h.
3)
U M.*.ff.,9
\\,4,w y y
l s
^
_ Lf I
a 5
l
'6 I
7
~
ESay ng CY's land -
^
' L..
EXWW6&l Res.icents,.olaa s hoae aower p ant's cecommission won't larm the environment two indes of Connecucut Yankee.
By Mark Guthrie An intern will soon begin cataloging all the ani-mais and insects in Chester Creek. MeanwhDe, Decommissioning the. Connecticut Yarnee another intern is presently studying hundreds of '
Nuclear Power Plant could be difacult because of different plant spedes in the area to see how the the plant's location in the middle of a watershed tide maM *s changing. Since the end of Chester's 2
industrias,.riod in the 1960s, the marsh,in mary of particular environmental signifkanca, e
But members of local environmental agencies ways, has returned to the more prisune state it are optimistic about the future and hopeful there was in before the American revolution.
will be plenty of mmmunication between the util-Residents along the Eight Mile Riwr in East ity, the Nuclear ham ~y CW-un and local Haddam,14yme and Salem formed an advisory citizens. -
committee that mapped the area and worked with
" People haw a much betteri sense of the an extension forester on projects along the water.
resourts in their back ystd and how to protect it,'
shed.
Juliana Barreu, tidelands program director for the
' land trusts in all these towns are wry.trited state Nature Conservancy, said hursday.
- and prosctive about the work they've been doing,"
Environmental scientists haw been working for Barrett said.
a number of years in areas v '.:hin the tidelands of
%e proactive approach has already led to a the Connecticut River induding Chester. Creek, certain amount of communication between letal Eight Mile Riwr and;the Salmon River, which environmental agencies and the Connecticut flows into the Connecticut Riwrjust south of the. Yankee Atomic Power Company.
28 pr.r'old nuclear power plant.
Por ext plc, while the plant was operating, De Salmon Riwr contains a wry large tidal utility officials consulted with the Nature
, manh and is home to a number of state listed rare Conservancy about how to control the growing species. Wild rice growing in the marsh supports population of Asiatic Clams, a non-native fresh-
, a large wildfowl population. Salmon swim up the water clam that could have been introduced to the river and over a tr4 der at the leesvdle Dam every Connecticut River when somebody dumped a par to spawn. American Bald Eagles nest in home aquarium. Maunchusetts has banned the Salmon Cow imm December through March while sale of Asiatic Clams because when they do get i,
many young binis spend the entire year within See RESIDENTS, Page A6 A6 THE HERALD PRESS
,. Sundsy, aanuary 19, 1997 4A
.a
.w e Residents hope decommission won't harm land:
' decommissioning,' much of the informed.
From Page Al
' future remains in question. De, ' 'Part of the responsibility for g
nuclear Pmr. plant takes'up the group will be to be the inter-v..into rivers and the psistic water, only a small portwn of the large ; face for the community for
'Xsupply, they cause problems.
PI'C' - of land, Connecticut what's going on," said Anthony =
e Technicians at Connecticut : Yankee owns, so area conserva-E. Nericcio, nuclear information 9 Yankee had problems with the tionists are interested in what supervisor for Connecticut
. ciams fouling or blocking the will happen to it. -
Yankee.
4 ports that supplied cold water It's likely that large reactor Compart, officials hope the
.,dto the nuclear plant. Rey used e mpomnts willabe amoved comittee will help keep the
. ~ Nature Conservancy advice and shipped out by barge, pos. flow of information open so area
.a when they cleared the clams ing a potential threat of radioac-residents will understand what's back and away from the ports.
tive nicase. A committee of util-happening as decommissioning
- S Although NRC officials ity officials, local residents and is carried out. De committee
- recently began outlining the util, regulators will soon be formed should be formed by March, ity's responsibilities during to help keep riverside towns Nericcio said.
5'"aa ExHl C2 TL ch Tcm,3D, \\ M
~
WW
%. y.
Connecticut Yankee mishap raises dismanth.ng concerns NRC cites safety Numemus pmcedum wm At mic Power Co.
Y violated or ignored en Nov. 2 The company, coowned by when tw w rkers came in eight utilities, announced in
} apses fOllowing, contact,it3 31,33, r,d3o,c.
oecember 13,t it was perma.
tive dust and debris. The nently closing the plant be-exposure incident
.orker,,, in,pect1n,, cause it can no ionger de op.
pathway used to transfer ersted at a profit. Northeast By PAUL CHOINtatt spent reactor fuel rods to the Utilities holds the largest Day Staff Writer adjacent storage pool.
share in the plant,49 pemnt.
Connecticut Yankee began "We are concerned about Haddam - Federal regula-the adequacy and effective-operations in 19G8.
tors are concerned about the stess of your corrective ac.
See NRCpage A4 ability of workers at Connec-tions as they relate to your ticut Yankee Nuclear Power staff's ability to safely Station to safely dismantle the progress with decommission-plant because of a recent in. tr.g activities." Nuclear Regu-cident in which two workers latory Commission ometals were exposed to high levels of stated in a recent report sent radiation.
to the Connecticut Yankee from Al no breathing equipment to protect eral decades, dunng which rsdia.
NU is preparing plans for the de-against airborne contamination.
tion levels would naturally decline.
commissioning of the plant. Pipes, The NRC is trying to determine how It would then be dismantled.
valves, the reactor vessel and other much radiation the men ingested The owners of Connecticut equipment, all highly raalated dur-and how great the health threat.
Yankee have made no final decision' ing years of use, must be cut up and The company is expected to be but have based their SC5 million removed from the plant. The parts fined as a result of the incident.
cost estimate for decommissioning will be moved to a radia..on dump in While inside the canal, the two on the immediate dismantlement South Carolina-workers picked up paint chips and process. Decommissioning using But the NRC in an investigation of other small pieces of debris. One that option would take several the Nov. 2 exposure incident sug-worker used his gloved hands to years gests that the staff at Connecticut spread grease around some rears in In a Dec. 9 letter to the NRC, Ted Yankee may be illprepared to take the canal. The unauthorized proce-C. Feigenbaum said Connecticut on the dismantlement task.
dure allowed " highly radioactive Yankee has implemented " interim The radiation protection organi-contam,ination to adhere to the corrective actions" to prevent a re.
ration at the plant, which will play a
- gloves, peat of the Nov. 2 incident. Work in lead role in the decommissioning The amount of debris couected in highly radioactive areas will be re-process, has experienced a number a bag carried by one of the worke s stricted until "'ong term corrective of recent changes, according to the weighed about 3 pounds. It was action" plans are in place, he wrote.
report...
fcund to be so highry radioactive it Any work that is done will need ap-Investigators sancluded that the was placed in a "High Radiation proval from the unit director, states changes have "the potential to sig.
Area" and covered with shielding.
Feigenbaum, who is executive vice nificantly impact overall perfor.
The names of the workers have president and chief nuclear omcer mance as well as the adequacy and not been released.
effectiveness of management over.
Rosemary Bassilakis of Haddam, fos plat' sight."
who directs the state chapter of a The NRC has scheduled a Feb. 5 The report goes on to state that group called the Citizens Awareness meeting with Connecticut Yankee Connecticut Yankee has had three Network, said the incident shows officials to discuss the recent report "radiatlers protection managers" in that NU is not ready to safely dis-and the corrective actions. The three years with the newest man.
mantle the Connecticut Yankee meeting is set to be held at the ager taking the position just six days plant.
agency's regional o.Dce in King of before the Nov. 2 incident.
"It is very clear in the NRC report Prussia, Pa. The Citizens Awareness The workers who entered the that they were either incredibly ar' Network has made a request that it transfer canal were not adequately rogant and did not feel they had t be moved to Connecticut
- informed about the presence of high follow procedure or incredibly in-levels of radioactive contamination.
competent." Bassilakis said.
"I think this issue is too important They were also not informed about The group has called for NU to use to be held in some far off location the proper procedures and precau the " safe store" eptien cf dec0m that prevents the citi: ens of this tions needed to minimize exposure.
missioning. Under that option the area from listening and participat-They w*re protective clothing. but plant would be mothballed for sev" ing." Bassilakis said.
ExWbd C-4 l
l v.* v
. =,
. m;Q c,
_DI"
,, C;11 MDDLETOWN 1997 VO N
aj
,@,.47 e
- p) {,9siteIs f (I
,(
'ssental pollMdiespassable.
-!C siGens, JW sig inviiiiiis.
, g
.being n=_=
7 ily. exposed.
? f...m
~ :., y.
and higher # inan ;necessaryi, l
t c releases into the riwr?, R-T. ,1&isi said, cone j
3 Se age ge Un e But.a plant.omcial sold the i g '
we n, which has,,t io 6* 'ac*d "$ be 'auad and.
^ inevitabie but shes sua *
- p.. -..
CORCe,rR9.
wul be within the Nucle; nenitored.
ca"=**"'
- tj; r.s;a lE bout offacts
,Jia'ma'*4'!"dt '
. gg' 'r reports are in the Russell.
[
- Weiconcerned about lot
[
.E IJbrary," Russell Menor,'dinctor term effects oflowlevel conta
^
' By 8'IEPHANIE JOHNSON of site operations, asld. "We are ination," she said. "'Ihere p, '
currently doing site characterk '-
quesdons of site contaminati f i
' is p,
ses Connecticut sation during which we find ano haw leached into ground wat, l
l*,
HADDAM Yankee ofncials ' confirmed monitor ary and all contamina-We don't know if tests han be
.e Monday for the first time that tie
- done?,
~'
- J" 1 $here is some site contamination
'lhe report said it wiU cost Douglas Farber, member l
$12.6 milhon to cleanup the site.
Citizens Awareness Netwo at the lladdam Neck plant But plant ofncials would not d from an old drain siclpowledge the figure,'anying 1 said he gets scared when he i, I"whi&leache
+
5 several years ago, according to a ahqr would issue a response at.
2 ens to su the news about i
j Mecent report telensed, estima4
^ the end of surnmer.4 e '
i-r con'==W'kn. "'lhen you
! ing the cleanup at $12.6 mmion.
'But some of the 60 area res.
'
- 1According to the report, con " t
- befon the ngulatory com:
- -Q' id t
tamination on the property is d See CONNEN.
ents. attending a Community
- Hated neer
- Ihe usiWfilter han.
e
. i } Decommissioning Advisory ldlire casks, the fuel bulkiing,
- . j Coromittee meeting Monday said O they%ere' scared about the
.between" the reactor contain.
e
- ment bulkling, a primary auxD.
,d effects of the alleged sou conta.
.lary building and a trench run.
j i mination at'.the Connecticut ning near the reactor contain.
O Yankee plant.which a plant ofB.
mentbuilding and the fuelbund-d j cial said would be monitored.
irg. In addition, another' site i
"We would hke to ensure that e
t listed in the report is a basketr h t the ? workers and public be ball court which was pawd over
- p exposed-to as litue contamir2 a leaching field cov'mwe-i in b i tion as possible," said Rosemary
. the past, the report said.
- Bassilalds, a member of the s.
p' l. Cittaans Awareness Network, a "Ihe contamination ranges from 6 inches to 10 feet, the
. grass toots volunteer group
, Iinhich.. watch auanis environ.
report said.
i
~
[J(
/b b h2
}
1 Yankee
=Pnwn At toes and ask them to per br CY's "---- nnt,' Farber%
saki.
Krica Moors, the CDAC rep I:
voiced concerns. "We as a can. l:
resentathe kom Chester, also munity have been asked to trust r you. But with CYAPCO's (Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power' Co.) track mcord in the past, there's not a lot of trust c fiUFn ihe E=ansty.'
RNAlt, the CDAC repw
- sentattw from Haddam, susens& ?
ed that ausgivimos from the top -
people 'at Northeast Uullties '
may be.the. reason br t.he mi,s-
"Ihe "op people there talk the talk but don't walk the walk,* he said. "Ihey how been unnaountable br some time even at the latest share holders Mellor' acknowledged tne plant's rocky past by saying, *lt hasn't been all good, there have. '
been some bumps and we'll be working at getting fewer and fcwer of them.1he s are mome
~
misunderstandings and inamu.
racies in,the documents (isd.
eral report)?
Meanwhile, Connecticut Yankee has been busy pleaning for the decommissioning of the plant which will not occur until !
a company report on the matter is issued in September.
'Ihe neu CDAC meeting will take place July 29.
t e
+
Thursday, July 3,1997 M
@je Def(Of21[D11fm1 l
~
Xuelearplant cleanup cost:
S100million?
Questions at Connecticut Yankee l
By MIKE Mc[NTRE which redistion his hund its way and DAN HAAR into the soil and pavement at the GmrantSavf Wrikrs Haddam Neck plant, which was clo ed last year and awaits decom-The grounds of the closed Con-missiordng.
I necticut Yankee nuclear power The utihty is collecting samples, plent could be so riddled with radio-searching through old files and con-acuve contamination that most of tacting retirees m an e4 ort to piece its asphalt walkways and tons of together a history of contamination
. soil would have to be removed Ay a - a history that includes instances cost of tens of millions of dollars to of leaking valves, overfilled tanks ratepayers,intemal Northeast Utili-and. in at least one case, radiosctive ties documents show.
water mistakenly poured down a l
Publicly, NU says it expects to storm drain.
pay $12.6 million to clean up 93,000 Questions about the extent of cubic feet of grounds contammated coatamination, and NU's inability by leaks and spills during the to quantify it, arose from a recent plar t's 30 years of operation.
inquiry by state utihtv regulators But memos and a site map pre-into Connecticut Yankee's entire pared by NU's own radiation safety $427 million cost estimate for de-specialists say 212,000 cubic feet of commissioning the plant.
pavement and soil may be contam-On Wednesday, the Nuclear Reg-mated - with a cleanup cost of ulatory Commission saidit was con-more than $100 million.
ductin itsrwnreview,promptedin By comparison,the Yankee Rowe part b Connecticut Yankee's histo-nuclear power plant in Massachu-ry of poor radiological controls.
l setts, shut down in 1992, had 25,000 Most re:ently, the NRC found in-cubic feet of contaminated grounds adequacies in the plant's proce-at a cleanup cost of $2.9 mdlion.
dures for preventing nuclear work-In interviews, NU officials and ers from tracking low 'avels of federal regulators say the Connecti-radiation around the grounds,andit cut Yankee radiation levels are cited plant personnel in February within allowable 1muts and are not a for returning contaminated video public health threat.
Cut NU officials also concede equipment to a rental company m i
they do not know the extent to Please see Cost, Page A12
[
In ddition, an NU cngineer working en the spill hist:ry said
/\\
th:re w:.s another incident,in 1977, I
that affected the same generalarea.
g NU has said that it du out most of
'$ dents
' " c ntaminate by the two Ah tws waitrono couiant Th,.4.y, ui 3,1997 in t
But surveys conducted by Con.
OSt m* Ques 10H necticut Yankee radiation safety of.
ficers last year found that "signifi.
cant amounts of radioactivity" remain in the round around and rnuCxear Cleanup m-=tweenea.-
Taken together, NU documents Q
show the fouled basketball court N
- 'dtl rag'",gyg;pg Memosdiscuss ConnecticutYankee ph m te than 200,000 cubic feet c.f ma.
heuedfrosaPaget
', "There is a certain amount of soil terial that would have to be ca.
contamination that needs to be tak.
posed of as low-level radioactive upstate New York.
en can of," said Ted Feigenbaum, waste.
{ Earlier thisyear,NU declared the the chief nucle:r officer for Con-
"Diese numbers caused the de.
plant's system of monitoring radia. hecticut Yan* '. "If you went out commissioning cost estimate to ex.
tion releasesintothe air and nearby
.0 radiation waste plode by approximately $100 mH.
Connecticut River inoperable after, >nd talkedengineers, son.e would say $10 mi,l.
lion. Hyky wrote."This forced us rly NRC inspectors found impro[un-tion, some woul,d say $50 million.
to reconsider the conservatism of calibrated instruments coul
"'Ihiswastheresultof 30yearsof our assumptions."
perstste the results.
peration of a nuclear power facill.
Questioned last mont'. oy an at.
John White, the NRC's chief of ty.This is what could be expected,,
torney for the state Department of 8
radiation safety for the Northeast pesaid.
Levy saidth hadnohardevidence Public Utili Control. Hykys and region, said Wednesday that while
'Ihere is scientific and political some ground contamination can be debate over how to measure, and to contradict he estimate of the ra.
' expected at plants as old as Con. dispose of, contaminated materials diation safety staff, pecticut Yankee, the huge disparity at redred reactors. Because even Instead, the two men said they wiim Ntre own timates pn.
16W B6su uifluistimisiiaismi;Ed decided to ad:pt a :mrd!c centa=,
inatiot. estimate because the $100 Wme questions.
to pose alon6 term cancer risk, reg.
million figure was so high.
, "How they went from $100 mil. alstors require that the smaUest lion to $ l million, with httle f actual amountsof radioacuvewasteleftby Rather than using the 200,000 basis, deserves some scrutiny," buclear reactors be cleaned up be.
cubic feet, which would have White said. "Ihere may yet be a fom a site is returned to possible amounted to a large sum of money, rational explanation for P But weindicated we thoughtit would be that's certainly a big disen ancy."
Public use, best to take a more conservative
! A lawyer and a nuclear tmgineer, Conservative assumptions a roach and reduce that," Levy hired by state utility regulators have When NU managers Richard s din a deposition."And we ended suggested that NU deliberately un.
}{ykys and Lawrencelevy set about of soil that was contaminated."
up with,I beheve,93,000 cubic feet derstated the contamination esti.
pates out of fear of generating a late last year trying to estimat e what Asked about the conflicting esti.
it willcost to clean up the Connecti.
publicoutcry,andthat'he company cut Yankee site after the plant is mates, Ietgenbaum said NU won't Inflated other decommissioning know the full rc,easure of contam.
tests to make up the difference.
- dismantled, they began by askmg ination until the site. wide survey
- NU denies that accusation. In in.
radistion safety specialists and now being conducted is completed
'terviews this week, officials said longtime employees of the plant for in about two months.
thetr recollections of mishaps over their nriginal contamination esti.
the years that caused contamina.
He said initial estimates were 1 mate was overs a e,t t d and that they based onunrealistic assumptions of tion.
- found they could lower c!canup what Hykys and 1.evy were told the depth of ground sentamination, e,osts by transporting the waste to a sent them back to the drawing although he said he had no data to less expensive disposal facility, support that assertion.
. board.
) However, NU managers ques.
In a handwritten memo datedlast "we re waiting for all the facts "
tioned by the state's lawyer said the :
initial estimate of widespread con.
November,Hykys said the radiation Feigenbaum said. "Some of the as.
sumpti nsinthat$100millionnum tamination was dropped simply be.
'saf ety staff " suggested that we esti.
be ma(have been way too conser.
cause the cleanup cost it generated mate that most of the site a,s,phalt vative. e think the number that's was too high.
walkways are contaminated.
I" O,em n w is a reasonable num.
, The NRC agrees with NU that Furthermore, they said the whatever the degree of ground con.
ound beneath an employee bas.
tamination,it does notpose a health fetball court may be contaminated There are other major cost dis.
putes at Connecticut Yankee -in.
k to plant emplo ces or the pub.
to a depth of 5 feet, because of a ciuding who will pay for storing ic.*Ihe levels of r i intion at the site 1989 accident in which radioactive spent fuel and whether the pictur.
llo not eaceed regulatory limits for a water in the spent fuel storage esque Haddam Neck location can plant in operation,and there are no building was mistakenly poured u a non nuclear pown hutdoor areas of the site that people down a storm drain,the memo said.
cig '7' pannot walk on,the NRC says.
The 1989 spill is documented in But ground contamination stands t NU says early results of an exten.
NRC inspection reports'of water as a testament to how well, or how which kive series of tests on soll, blacktop show that about 50 gallons pc rly, the plant has been run for and vegetation have turned up "an.
contaminated an area of more than three decades.
o 1
bxtremely low percentage' of con.
extendtn be 500 square prds'adiologicafcon.
c mpanyhws I
I"*I"*I'd ""*EI
yond the plant's "r wh t e e tent of tht is," said trol area" and leaking into a canal Ran all Speck, the Washington that discharges clean water into the iawyer hired by the state DPUC to Connecticut Riverc
~
t e
f> 2 S-I Investigate the decotsmissioning l estimate.ney include:
estimate. "They are supposed to know a wholelot about tnisbecause e A 10 percent to 20 percent under NRC regulations they are
" height adjustment" surcharge on removing components. De add-on supposedtokeeprecordstoidentify assurces that plant equipment is at what contamination is in the sod least 12 feet off the hoor, and re.
h 1se "
cubanke'e and NU offi.
quins scaffolding - a conMon Co that clearly does not ex1st through-CI"ls se kno ch th out the plant. Feigenbaum said the to know.
ratios tive uthing nowunderwayis nor-adjustment is an average, to ac-count for some heights that are
' _ mal for a newly retired plant, they much taller.
said eExaggeration of the size and They and other experts say it ir number of various parts sm;h as not possible to measure minute lev-Nters and cables that need to be els of radioactivity while major removed and in some cases decon.
components such as a reactor core taminated. This includes spare am still nearby.
parts that are, in some cases, still in Mdsht as@astnwnt storage and never were used.
State regulators and consultants e'The lack of any coct savings say that NU could be trym' g to mask fromthe possible sale of the site as 4 an operational record that is so bad
- the legal word is "im dent" -
hv ene f the
.f
- 1. g "U
! M POW I'Gif Ediii, and from salvage of
,,5e evidenceindicates that Con.
e9ulPment. NU officials, parts and including 1
necticut Yankee owners chose to the chief executive for nuclear oper.
lant prematurely in or-ations, Bruce D. Kenyon, said they retire the fd the clearl imprudent have no use for the site and no one der to avo tlse has come forward. As for sal.
costs associated with esign rever-vagmg ipment, an Oregon offi-ification, management corrections cialsaid at perfectlymachined,"
and soil contamination," said James K.Joosten,the state's technj.
well maintamed parts at the retired cal consultant, in testimony last jgPlantinthat statehavefound e'ffect,the costs of cleaning up Intotal,the state said Connecticut Yankee should receive $207 million the soil contamination at the site were ' buried'in an inflated decom-f r the decommissioning, rather than $427 million. Much of the dif.
missioning estin. ate," Joosten said.
ference is due to a debate over Asked to ri.s nd to Joosten's as, whether the federal government sertions,NU's eigenbaum replied:
Will ay for fuel storage, and other P
" Wrong. Wrong, wrong."
Pohey questions - not a dispute He and other company officials over t e estunate.
said the decision to retire the plant
- which is 49 reent owned by NU,co-owned b ine othercompa-nies and run b NU - was stnctly he $207 millionis almost exactly economic.
the amount that has been collected They said the costs associated through electricity rates and set with mismanagement at the plant aside for the job. De rest would were not built into the retirement come through rates over the next costs and were not a factor in the two decades,if thatwere allowedby decision to close it; and that the federal regulators.
t overall costs were not inflated.
"If they think that they can do it Ultimately, they said, ratepayers for $207 milhon, then maybe they willbe asked to cover only the costs should go ahead.We used industry-for work that is actually done.
approved approaches to estimating Joosten, a former cluet technical this," Feigenbaum said. "We feel assistant to a niember of the U.S.
confident that our numberis defen-Nuclear Regulatory Commission, sible" cited severalitems that he saidwere But Reginald Smith,whorecently improper in Connecticut Yankee's completed his term as chairman of the DPUC and led the Connecticut Yankee inquiry, said, "We're just going to kind of stay there with the o
Bunsen burner and keep the heat on."
Byld?b Ob of3)
I 4
Leaks a~nd spills at Connecticut Yankee plant 5 Areas shaded in black show the location of possible radioactive contamination from leaks and spills over the years on the grounds of the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant. Northeast Utilities says the map reflects a preliminary estimate, and tnat in no cese is there a public health threat. Soil and asphalt testing may dstermit o '.14t the actual
,.7.,
4... A.
~ ~ ~ ~. ~..
contamination is less than anticipated.
y:
,..-..-....J w m me(
eyr. coy $
'l e
kKI.ll M A' L w.4
- M..
paisurand y.nsdwaste
.2.!91888M8La h M b $
WE$i
+b Vewehouse.
Mg l
1 ewv.w n ;
o f
1 L t.._i 1 a m =en kwr
/.<
- w l
b ause.
.. s mpvyy,q r-.
- dekIe' l' a
qfd%f~
.cg gu 2-
,~__s-'
h in E
i N h.14g%fdM.h
)
Plant technicians ulich 5
h.
have found low l
M
["g":l l
levels of tr" um, a
'.t.
l"~~~"
m.g.ug radioactrve isotope.,
- g in a test well on this
%.--- -].
t.,
"-"-** Water intake g
peninsuia.
m
\\
p + n r.u, =.
,g
=
- D,&.+yy y
T N' w r. x& v, xf M a
'>*v:y
,o s
w(
y AU h
Y 5
b e
9x.m
."m,4:w, ;n.a. s w t
w{o u w.y The Hartraro couren sounct.Nors= :unn
(
%b e
res au, w am h
reuuMe N ss VOL 113, NO. 304, MIDDLhTOWN, CT, Septembei19,1997
~
D. Dodd' ca. is for bm. ad.e....r nuke pmbe
, hator says CY Haddam fiasco peints to bigger problems.
Sc 7
(
6.,' * *.}9y STEPilANIE JOIINSON l
l JIADDAMf,U.S. Sen. Christopher J.
- gressional hearing on the sihmtian J(egu'atory Commission.'. Dodd, a
,Dodd said 'itiirsday he is outraged by within the next 30 days.
Haddam resident, said. *lhey'w been the continuing reports of contamina-He also agreed agreed the ratepaprs totally asleep at the switch on this. And tion at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear should not be responsible for cowring if they'w dropped the ball in
' lbwer Plant, gross mismanagement at any costs associat- '. with the shutdown Connecticut, haw'they also done it else -
, Northeast Utilities, and the Nuclear of the CY and Millstone plants.
.where? A complete examination of this
' Regulatory Commission's apparent neg-
- Where there's smoke, there's fire; can't be done soon eru,ogh.".
' ligence in addressing the blatant prob. and it's my sense that we may find a First Selectimman Marjorie DeBold tems at the site and called for a con. threealarm blaze over at the Nuclear said she was not aware of Dodd's call utibty.'
in a letter to U.S. Senate M4ority leader Trent lett, R-Mississippi, and for an inwstagation but said she was Minonty Leader Tum Daschle, DSouth not surprised. She said she agreed the Dakota, Dodd expressed frustration reported mismanagement needs to be with the nuclear situation in the state inwstjgated and that the NRC should and the NRC's slow response to the be held responsible.
4
'So the responsibility can be clearty problems. He asked the leadership to placed,' DeBold said. "Ihe town needs forward the request to the appropriate to continue to keep abreast ofinforma-owrsight committee as sen as possible tion and keep in close contact with the
, See DODO, A8 '
, 4.
w-r----we
.---1
I A6 - The Middletown Press, Friday, September 19,1997 Dodd wants Congress to. investigate Northea' t s
x Utili. tie.s. and NRC e
r
~.
f e From Pags t
' implications of continued problems ' public's and the CY employee's safety, with the state's energy supply..
Surwys, measurement, reviews of the to schedule a formal meeti4 i
- 1 want to know exactly how far this past practices as well as numerous
.I" "],5 P"[
goes,' he said. 'I understand that hVs interviews of past and present employ-
,8' "
mismanagement is new on the block,. ee have been ongoing, she said.
-idea that NU is going to pass the buck but we're talking about a company's
'We have found nothing that poses a abng to be people of CoMeut b
% wtrageous. W chns d ur. response to its customers and its state, threat," she said.
Ihis has gotten sloppy, and the people All the inues being reported lately,
}
state should not, and will not, pay a of Connecticut, myself included,'are no haw been Known and documents by*
1 dime extra for inismanagement.
longer going to buy rhetoric alone. We both CY and the'NRC, she said. 'Ihe Dodd also said he is in supp')rt of testing the exposed areas for contamb. og og.
NRC is still looking into their reporting Diane Screnci, NRC's public affair requiremwnts tr incidents at CY,'she nation and expressed his concems officer, said within the past several said.
about the larger implications of the sit-months, a number of thmgs haw been Screnci said CY was issued afine for
. Q @ $ pW focus on be hblWbWWWh l.
ues, he said, ti re are ecom
..v.,....
NRC'is still looking into the timeliness
~
. of reporting incideras. Cw..fohn G.
' Rowland reported Wednesday that CY reported the first fuelleak. weeks after the incident and repc-ted a second inci-dent inont.t.s later.
Reganiing the push for a congres-sional hearmgi Screnci said the NRC would support a hearing because~the agency is mandated imm Congress to keep it fully informed..
],
"Ihe NRC feels it has been on top of the iscue at Haddam' Neck,' she said.
'And we are still reviewing it."
b O
i.
- 1. tiad. dam u set witii
~n Haddam upset g real estate values
~w t
bV pluInnleting at:
contamination alerts worry property owne.$ -
d ;,
from A1 waste dump
- and added they show there is no U
' Democratic U.S.
Sens. (letectable activity within the real estate value d - =. a =.rr=d.=. =:
S - a n s.l dosum.
Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph pond.
n thm s sneke deep,* he said.
Repu and Democratic imohe evaluadng the radiologh Connecdcut Yankee contamination '
- U 3re**co*m*i; 'h # ggblicanasta.ya -== *e r",f,*'*:i"' 7 cd'"
n Resident Trevor Deus said alerts worrV DroDerty owners Melk r sam he recognised last the historical site assessment.
oc s -nc-s a-sha-e e, w.ek was an.m.tional.eek fer He sale sewrai.roup. who spe.
/ 1 1
/
mary and the impact the plant's mary iving in the area and he cialize in the different areas to um am -cent repod8 d By FrEPHANIE JOHNSON Stew Rono an ar hi contamination are having on agreed that there is no immi-be looked at will be actiwly
,,g nent public safety issue.'Ihe offl. imched in this phase. 'Ihe sys-dewlopments throughout cials, he said, mcogNae thm is tems Men W iWe W MIDDlETOWN - During a Haddam and recent public Chaarman Hugh Curley saki a thirst for informanon and that ing apart various components meeting of the Community reports surrounding CY are the committee will work to pt all the past incidents haw been Whin me @t ami 100% at Decommissioning Advisory ruining his business. 'The com-the word out to the public, nH documented and known by h hW#, M M N Committee Tuesday night, wor-munity, he said, has been which incl *ade broadcasting the the
- Nuclear, Regulatory struenares evaluation, he said, nad Haddam residents focused harmed as a result of *he recent meetmas owr the local public Committee, tM aancy which W hus on tM wans, hn on plummenng real estate val. media attention to the site cont-access channels @Jng with owrsees the operations at the aM ceths ermaghout M
, ues in the wake of recent conta. aminatiort.
this meeting, Russell Mellor, plant.
plant, whae the land amas mm j
minrtion alerts at the
- lla is a wonderful..
director, of site operadons in pg,c,,.ddam Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Rocco said. "It has been.
decommissioning at.CY, said McDor and Richard Sexton, to be eval ed.
f%er Plant in Haddam.
l CY officials gsw a presenta-designated by the Nature empary officials are willing to dier of MMm @ics at CYc i
presented the committee with a McDor said CY will be enlist-Conservancy as one of the last go argwhen to talk to argem great places on Earth.-
l t
recent issues that haw historical site assessment map ing the cooperation of Oak Rk!ge D,
which locate:1 all the previously Insti'ute for Science and *{
r ty Randolph Road about the Rocco said p-ople are trying documented sites of concern on Education, known for prmiding t process of locating and remedi. to sell their houses in Haddam Last week, Gov. John G.
the plant's site. CY, they said, is federal agencies with goality p, sting contamination on the ard are having a wry hard. time Rowland and state Attorney currently beginning the scoping radiological surwys and em+
g plint while property owners as a resn!t of all the negattw General-Richard Blumenthal surwy phase of site characteri. ronments assessments, as an wame1 answers about what attention the area has been lambasted the compargr for what zation. "ihe first phase imotved independent third party to g they p:an to do to help the com. receiving due to the recent CY they called tax work pracuces, collecting and mapping previ-ensure all the decommissioning i
\\ munity deal with the plant's do-
. Wing eahh at the o4 domrmnted amas d an-Wh h Wn &ne M
} previoustr thought. Blumenthal su e.
See HADOAM, As (
site as more, widespread than ' cern.,-
He said by aBowing ORISE to i
Sexton said he received the interwne he hopes the reported caDed es ptlent *an undocu.
esults from the pond sedimen. gdata will hok! credibility with g nyteQ3m^"
, neelear tion taken on theys site;,the onraD@a,;
- (
[y - %T. A T\\.M,1w. w 4
a 9
c
p c4 nm
=
- Ma ri d, $
I.
~
s12 j@ J
^
3 nC 11 Le '2s i
- b. K.nW8
( a M H 13 di k 1 Al a
.,.c
. i a
e d,.g 1 n i
9.mMip d,
State DPUC to consider removino b
y,p, d' jl #w Millstone plants from rate base e
ah hem A1 costs wtD approach $1 bdllon, debt on the nudearplants 8
3j gg NRC approval in late January to On Tuesdas a group of consumer.
iflERIM M
- 1 JI 3 tes' art the newest of the stactors. environmental and community Cours cihd D%
M1Hstone 1 Under the best suenario, based orYaMutians held a news cco.
Guy R. Mana, state consumer
'd -
a the restart of the otner unats r.,
ference at the DPUC odice canh.g up-counsel, said the courts have made it
'h., *e *h'3fj jj snams months away on the commission to cut electric clear that regulators cannot ntroac l
g
' j Lawyers for NU have argued that rates by declartng that the Millstone tively fbete a rate reduction and re-4 4-
"@ I
!gj eonsidering the usefulness of the plants are not used or useful quire nbates to consumert Mana's I
I li k **
Millstone plants has no part in the The groups included those that oince has the job of npresenting g
35 procent he company has nfused to haw lonr been critical of NVs oper-consumers during rate proceedings.
y
.a
. *;M. at 3
prvvide Blumenthars ofnce wtth in. ation of the Minstone plants -the Whue a retmactive rate cut seems b
4.-
}
Drmation on operating and mainte. Connecticut Pubtle Interest Research out of the que.4 ton. Mazza feels a I3 P*p@iumsg. +j 2
e expenses,infbrmation the at.
G. cup, C1'tzens' Awareness Net. case can be made that would force
, puunum j
y generalcould use in arguing wart. Citizens' Regulatory Commis. NU to drop tts electric rates unti the 3
'*' e psse g"
tr a rate reduction.
stoc. People Action for Cleon Energy Millstone plants are back tr. opera.
lll In a deciston issued Monday, the the Connectic'It Sierra Club and the tzon.
w FPUC made it clearit willconsuler Connecticut Citizens Action Gmup
.While there is no precedent in a
1 y
arguments diat the MI!! stone plants '-but also antipoverty orsat1za: tons Connecticut fbr removing a noclear P
7.
ihould be removed from the rate
- not normany associated wtth criti. plant from the rate base,it has hap-g" 2
E
{
base, and it ordered that the cotnpa. s cism of the nuclear Industry pened elsewhere Mazza said. After GE as.
my provide Blumenthal and the Of.
Joining in the raiuest for a rate re-the Thne Mlle Island nuclear acci-
- T 4*j3
~i 2 flee of Consumer Counsel with th, duction were Vecinos Unidos War. de:tt in IMt. the New Jersey and
- 6 "jjf 35g Information they uek.
riors for Real Welfare Reform, and Pennsylvania otility commissions
~~
8 "De scope of this proceeding un. Youthful Justice.These groups said removed that facility from the rate questwnably aDows fbr an investiga. high electric rates have a dispropor. structure.
pp 8 'l' $ f, j ]
II
.tton into the poasibility of nmoving tionate affect on the pooc Beryl Lyons, a spokesman fbr the ne or more of the Millstone units "The thousands of safety viola-DPUC, said it has not been deter.
- l=.;; E the rate base " states the DPUC tions at Millstone has Jeopardized mined whether the regulations in
- -' g 3 decision. "The Department cannot the health and safety of our commu-thJse states an similar enough to
'O,;
tulful its statuto(y d'attes without nities
- said David Sith. a Stonington Connecticut's to sern as a pace-
's ut a@
considersna thisJstuac resident and memberof the Citizens' dent. De nw DPUC commissioners
-W t;
h
%w s g
Regulatory Commission. *We haw cannot ec mment on the ra9 case Q
c3 2 2 yjj D. ecnios duein Decetaber already paid too much for NU's bla-while proceedings conttrue, Lvons
- g he agency is fbliowmg a schedule tant mismanagement. We refuse to sam.
C1.
a that would lead to a draft dactston by contmue putting our wanets and our Ted Fang, utilities organizer for
[ 1"l j
- 5]
O.C
' =
Dec. s. It is planning to conduct a safety into the hands of an irrespon-th* Connecticut Citizens Action l
public hearing trum oct. luz.
stble compans-croup. said it comes down to a ques-M O
- ne DeUc has taxen a hard itne The groups catied for a reba,e io tionoffa3, nest with N'J during the Minstone shut-consumers of the 3300 millien they "Asaresultof NU'sirresponsible D *O jd 8
i dowtL In June it ruled that NU could said NU t:as charged ratepsyers dur-cost <utting decision and gross mis.
e passil 3*
f not pass along to consumers the cost ing the M111 stone shutdown. The cur-management at Mulstone. CCAG be-g h%*'O l
of the Millstone recovery or the nnt rate structure allows NU to earn lleves that NU does not deserve to O
price it has had to pay for renlace' a 9 percent profit above the cost of pruftt frota these nuclear lemons." he g
,,j gnent powet NU has estunated those pay *ng th' $2 bt11dn outstanding satt f
2 a
8s
!e C
? is y 3'3 I E
- o9 3.; a r a.WmrW
@ 5 ;e '
l a
i r i
4d S8 l
13
FROM : CM pa m,. 060 315 6431 Oct. 02 1997 07:0121 PC2 h[h(M THURSDAY l
OCTOBER 2,1997 SKTIONre j
K Acts xTakescostlysteps 2
To EaSp To EaseLenders' Fears
.)
r',
Continued from Fage Ct kin said,
)};
As for the creation of the CIAP d
ment that NU ts pushing back 19 sthidiary, Kotkin desertbed'lt as
^
'rj *
[
long-hoped.for restad of Millstone.
an accounting r*1ulttment'i that allows CIAp to continue' havits to early next year hu some Invest.
f' F
Q ment analysts concerned that NU ready accessto cash at slowerinte G
could be cdging closer to defaulting estratethanwouldbe availablewith on a $314 million nyolving crcdit a conventional bank loan or bond Itne.Each month Mt!! stone 3 contin. Issue. He aald that the banks were j
hngyhgDf uos to be offline costs NU $9 million adequately protected prior to the b
in nplacement power, plus several change and that concema about a-r f
. potential bankruptcy were not the
' To Be Costlyg' '
million more in r,epairs and other d,, vin,-nd a.
e.,enses,, NU,
e, man "If the company has tobook signir.
NU's three Millstone roactora leant additional reserves to tske into have been shut dawn since March py Misgl e tflag
- [-
account operating losbes they lutow 1996,and the company permanently Courant Staff Wnter C
will occur going into 1998, they closedits Connecticut Yankee plant
. ne artened shutdown of Gw might be in default." said Peggy in HaddamNecklatelast year.Withs Millstone nuclear power plants has
' Jones, a bond analyst with Pruden. out the reactors to generate power, deepend worties on Wall Strod tial Securities in New York. "It NU is spending 320 million to $30 about Nodheast Utilities and f med would be dimcult for CIAP to n-millionamonth to purchase re, dace?
. the ocEpany to take costly steps,to
- main w! thin the idebt-to equity and ment power, andit expects to spesid, reassunhttsrylenders..
interest) ratios required if there are overall $1 bi'llon to get the Millstone Promptd by downgradse in NU's any further delays getting Mlusione station up and runntrig again.
A wild card in NU's financialpic.
creditrating,a groupcfbanksledby notattd in m" ture is its Public Se:Tios of New Citicorp forced HU subeldlary Con.
Penelope Adelmann, a stock ans.
nocticut IJahtA Power.co. to De lyst at Gruntal & Co. in New York, Hampshire substdlary, which is
.fbrm alegalmaneunrdsprend by ardi"If there are any additional de-locked in a bitter battle with that stats regulators last mouth, that en*
lays in the restart of Millstone, the state over a proposal to' cut electric suns the banks would be repaid up company rnay fall out of comptance rates e porcent. NU has said that to 3200milhoninshort4erm cmditif.
with bank agmements that were en.
such a cut could bankrupt P8NH, CIAF ever went bankrupt.
teredinto earlier this year."
which would severely hud NU as a De banka han ban extanh nese same analysts say there is whole.
the cndit alnce June 1996, when nothing to lndleate a bankruptcy by "With the Millstone units down, CIAPstanad"se2 ng"theunconset New England's largest uttuty is (m.
PSNH has been the single most reH.
d balance due on its customer ao minent, and they point out that its able soume of locome for NU." said Adelmann "You take that out of the counts in onler to druns up eaah 30 to l x. lenders would most likely renegoti.
80 days soorWr.than nonnalj
- Ste its financing in the event of a pleture, and then everything rests on
,' March, CtAP sold 330b million k defauh. That's what happened last Millstane."
. accounts *eceivable to mact a 8 year when NU was fbund to be in It nmalrtsunclear whenanyof the indhadebtpaymentthat came due.
violation of a loan covenant.,
Millstone units will be resuuted.
To omtinue the anungernent,the Jefimy Kotkm. numager cfInves Wayne fanning, a senior regional banks moently doubled their annual tor relations for NU, agreed that the omclal with the Nuclear Regulatory fee chargedte CIASfrom 8230,000to possittuty exists for a default if the Commission overseeing the Mill 86co,000, and requind tho creattorycf Mitta.une 6hutdown drags on stone recovery process, sald the cem-a new CIAP subaidtary, whose rein through the second quarter or next pany has a lot left to do.
willbe to shield the banks hem 6e year. He'said NU fully expects to IAnning alto noted that NU's financialwoes ofits pamnt"evenin have at least one urut restarted be. strongdesin toget atleestone of the bankruptcy or tsceivership" the fbre then. hut he added"' don't think reactors rvnning ogaln sometimes utility says in a Securittee and Ex-anybody out there is believing we shows.
change'Commienton flung. Creating will have a unit up and running at "You see it in temis et schedule the subs {dlary to expected to coet the beginning of19%"
presturts, the pre 3Sure on Worken CtAP en additional 8170,000.
"If you start getting way into next to get things done," he sam *Pve Meanwhile, the ment announps* j sumnier, and you don 1 have any leen personally concernod about the O
unit runnhut, I'm sun we'd have to quality ofsomeofthe workwhentt's M N " E*9' M Ro hack and talk to our b.mks." Kot. schedule driven."
CY guards charge chemicals *
- at nuke plantmade them sick JOIINSON g
why people haw been gritting
[# 77 By fi!EP
. sick. then. Cousino said they
- will be consulting a doctor.
'bilDDIEIDW' 4Within the past three weeks,
- p.
. But Anthony Nericcio, pub.
N more than 30 employees working in' the contaire.
./ *
. lic information ofncer at CY,
' ment unit at. Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Ppwer,
said from his Pbrtland home Plant 'in' Ifnm haw become sick.because of.
' Wednesday night ' that thett t has been no' chemical release 1' chemicals ' released,into lhe air, two emplofees et c s
',Durnsl,dsy durin,'g@a" press co,at CY; charged on, f f.
88
'nant air?He said the, plant is Becurity orking'.
3
- and he believes the emplo5ees Wedng nference on the city's 5'
M nsickness:was.<=rt by. stag-
. %outh Greerd*y,f 'f, T..
-, y.a 'q.4. 6,
/
8 SQ(ark'pasino,hald% has been, working forl
' inve~stiga: ting wh' ether " mold f,hurss 'Securiff.a4,a neptrity' guard at CY,for they,yN gd, L,aporefor bacteria in stagrd
' pkst eight pars while Jeffrey Nesmith has been. water cotild have caused the outbreak *and the.
- Occupational Safety 'anif IIcalth1 Administration j
therefor,15 years. Both men said theyw~ill be seek l has beeg',contacteddLM.. U r -
loglegal repiiisentation soin1bs6utse tlicy' don't 5e 4
"gr'edoinfenough WdetermineM4/59 E N i ; C'JM#9 *S,;5e GUARDS, A8 -
belkse
- w. w.L,CY 1
>r-
_;_wree--r
,v--~-
. m u.
_.w4
~
A couple days after the ~ instanth'N[a $ of t D* Al
'eThe resulta 'of air samples Containment Air Nirculation odor and reporte'd it. Superior Fans wen turnd on b h officers told these emplopes the en e o el t plant, reports say employees odors were from i*nordtoxic.
organic compounds:. toluene, began smelling a. strong odo' cleaning ' solvents
- and not to,
xylene l benzene, hexane, per, described as adhesht* or *nt.J worry atout them, the reports !
chloroethylene, trichloroethane, ethyl benzene and n-butyl polish remover.
say. All employees '" reported acetate, accortling to 'a docu.
More than a dozen routine coughing and feeling headaches j
ment ' frong Frances,Walsh, of reports document almilar and a burning serjsation in their Berlin's' safety "and ' health instances where employees nose and' throat.'
department.' WC'e DN*f Although Ge lewis were below the current occupational exposure limits set for the indi-vidual compounds, exposure to hericcio said a doctor was most of these chemicals may called in, interviewed a dozen cause drowsiness, nausea, eniplopes and took ear and headache and respiratory irrita-
, nose samples from eacit tion, according to documents CY's imestigation will con-from OSIIA. n*
tinue, he said, adding that Nesnitth said he is asking CY restricted use to the contain-ofncials to conduct a full inw.+-
ment area will continue until tigation.
CY can determine what's going Cousino said a chemist at CY on.
told empkoves the chemicals ingested will leaw their systems but the effects may not show up untillater.,
e,
- My throat leeps getting drier and my c>es continue watering,'
Nesmith said.. T ', Nesmith Deginning Sept,11 said, workers equipped with res-phrptors began working in the arp of the containment unit whil: the. guards were left with-oug equipment He said infec-tions among the staff am con-tinuing
'Nowhere in Connecticut are emplo>tes put into this kind of,
predic:mnt,' Nesmith said.
- Why we e we ! bit in the area without respirators?'
~
As THE HEflAl D Yuesday. October 7,1997 e
Radioactive materi4,.. foppd athite of former day-care" center J-d e
c
.s hMmbNhM een k a penon W at. not
- mum-ay concerti. tesdng program will be opera, additional properties which may
~ Ily Stephanie Jahrunon - has consulted with state health the spot for 365 days. By com. with local residents. Using con., tional by midOctober 'a
" scecm ro w wwo onletals and believe that no pub-parison, U. S. residents recefwe a servadve calculadons, in 1989. results forthcoming, the DEP person believes they have
- 11ADDAM - State orncials lic health action is necessary riational averse
- of about 360 when the soE was placed on site, said.
received potentially conuminat-541 Monday that a tiny amount with this new information. But, milltrem each year from *back-.the levels of radiation would be, Ruswu McDor. CY site direc-ed rdt from C7 they are advised of; radinactive matertal taken DEP officials also said they w-re ground
- radiation present every, a smmB fraction of a chest Xoy?; tor, said CY wiu continue to take l
fmm the Cenn-eticut Yankee tooldog for eight to 10 childnn where on the Earth. B-4 d
he DEP, NRC, and Northeast offsite ' son samples *ahd he'; to contact the DEP at.4240073.
^ The DEP has'also established N4rlear Power Plant ended up who may lurve been cared for radiat5on is measured from sun. Utilities have been testing water, piedgad to.tssue,further pubue a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> ? Conn w( the grounds of a former day-when the daycare was on.the,Ifght and various. rocks and sou and sediment sampks from updates as the 'results become Information IJne* ati 424-4100.
care center.
a.
property.
y plants, radiation, experts have the area around the Connecdcut avaEsble. He also said a highly-De information line includes a gThe property had been used.
De DEP reported Friday, said Yankee Nuclear Ptmer riant in, wh
- team of Certined recorded snessage that win pra a3 a licensed day <nre farthey that the plant related radioactive "The exposure level for an Ifaddam Neck since mid-from November 1984 to mater!al at the Identified offstte individual at the site today and September.
IIcalth Physicists from the Oak vide the puhue whh general Pktge Institute for Science and information on DEP's actinues tyvember 1990, the state lention is *well below the reme-back when the fiH was depostted ne state will continue scG Education from
- Oak Ridge; tre the area around CY.
Department of Er.vironmental diation levels 7 with it register. 'still remains very, very, very sampling and will Ittitiate a Tennessee, will be arriving at CY he information will also Iwection reported, though offt ~ Ing at about 360 times smaller low,* Arthur Rocque, Jr., DEP ground water testing program today to begin the previously. direct members of the putilic cials did not provide specific than normal background radia-commissioner, said.-
- DEP, over the next several weeks. NU, e.o~M third party review of where to callif they beliew tlwy information on its location.
tion in the' United States. Department of 11ealth Services under the supervision of DEP, soil contamination sampling and have received fin from CY arwi
- The DEP also connrmed that Current measuremerits show the and the Nuclear Regulatory will be testing the ground water analysis, who to can for other related the fill containing 'he rsoloso soll sample identified would pro- - Commission agree that the lev-at the plant and in the immedL The DEP has'also begun a infonnatiott tne materist was deposited on duce about I millirem per year els are signincant and should ate vicinity. The ground water process to identify and sarnple
, y y
w:
o i
Nb j
$ t,E L Puum 5 t. 5 E
[74tih/? C-/3 Search On Fo'r
.s w E n> g i
o-
,O
.
- a t:
P 0*
Testing of several truck loads of ten y '" 3 51 QMdgd spreadaroundtheyardof aneighborof 2
._ h j~8o gg q
the plant en Injun Hollow Road in
$M yE Haddam Neck found slightly elevated
~
e i
) kd E 6
.C%
kg.
levels of Cesium 137, which,like Cobalt c*jj 60, b associated with nuclear power wa plant operations. Howevec NRC omcials Continu. d imm Page 1 said the Cesium is believed to reDect ele.
e
" 10j{j31$; $
the playground are below those of nat.
vated worldwkie levels due to "faHout E*E a-3.
ural t'.-wmd radiation and do not fun past nuclear weapons tests."
8* #EihE 2
pose a health threat, NU and state envi.
Interviewed at his home Tuesday, the ronmental omcials said. Omcials said ownet of the Injun Hollow Road proper.
'g g3j I.slj g they do not know where other ship.
ty - who agreed to talk only if he was 2
I g
ments of untested fill may have gone, not namedb sak' he learned about the a
"w i33 g3 M I
The utility also said it never know.
free fill otter by word of mouth. He said OP 35' 3 =3 i Q j. 5 2.' '2 I
ingly released contaminated material a contractor hired by. Connecticut jig; j
frotn the plant, which has a history of Yankee to dispose of the material deliv.
I Ey g ky d md faulty radiological controls. Earlier this ered it to his house, and that no papers 15 26565EA year, the plant was criticized by ngula, or contract were signed.
tors for allowing contaminated video Gustavsen said NU was behaving as a E $ j s, y, j,,*jj jj equipment to be returned to an upstate "goed neighbor" by giving away the f111.
15 2,, j a a:
New York vendon However, its good neighbor policy came j$2giA,f!S3 5
"We know of no instance where as a surprise to NRC ometals, who said Ej3 E,c3 I
there was ever known contamination they only recentlylearned of it. ~ '
j ! j~,j $. ]3 j { g j
.o g.:
shipped offsite as fill," said NU "It was news to me,'personallx that j
sii a 21 = " {
spokesman John Gustavsen.
they were doing this," said White, who S5 a ti ! g3 h6 But the NRC said it was concerned added that there wouldn't necessarily be j$d6 *j 2
~
c e=
that some soll fmm the large contami.
anything wrong with the practice if the ag*$$#d8jj*
nated spot, or from soine other area of material was tes'ted and proven to be
- IEd =jaj g $ g known contaminationlmay have some.
clean before:lt was released. However, adj 3
s
=
--1-**
NU has not been able to document that "It's certainly con lceivable, and it's how left the plant..
such testing odcurred,he salc. '
o j kb "7
h6 an area that we're ic,olling at," said John David Lochbaum, a' nuclear engineer m
E3 White, chief of radiation safety in the with the Union of Concerned Scientists, egl;5
- $i g
NRC's northeast regihn. "There doesn't said an Mg that' leaves the site of a is eg 3 U")
5 seem to be a lot of records of where the nuclear power p hwa,edybe'sur-.
j {7j3
]S b.th..gj.
+.a material originated on the site, and veyed to make sun it is not radioactive.
C 2g !.2 g
7 d.,
where it went when itleft the site."
"The way the law is structured, you lijsg@$]
~
~g On Tuesday, the NRC said it had are supposed to know that it is safe" T
Q.d g
asked specialists from Oak Ridge before it leaves the plant, said a5 S 95 E-agEIj l*
National Laboratories in Tennessee to Lochbaum. "You are not supposed to
(
s
- s M
(
M j*3jj ~ {E come to Connecticut to provide indepen.
prove aRet the fact it was safe."
ts dent tests of materials found to have The lack of reconis of site contami.
- ~~
V N
U af,ga5a been removed from the plant. It is the nation became apparent during the j
k j s*!jS 2 5,j t second time this year that the federal Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ti 6gC=b laboratory has been asked to get rate case eariter this year, in which state
~ d [l y 5.c 5$=Siinvolved in a contamination case involv.
regulators submitted records and testi-s g
{
o
{
wJ g'k2=a6
. ing Connecticut Yankee: the nrst many showing that NU could not quan-6 hl I
2 $$395gl2 4
s involved the exposure of two plant tify t.te full extent of contamination at o
$ $6 employees to high levels of radiation the plant.
Z
$ %(g]g3-;
T lS 3 1 while working inside the reactor.
The reconis included a site map pre-
%3 1 4
- f.
- d 3a$fIgishgs"A Ejg NU began circulating a newsletter to pared by Connecticut Yankee technt.
residents over the summer asking any.
cians showing that large areas of the iERti#g one who received material from the plant were believed to have been conta-h ct
-]-
plant to contact them. The pies was part Wted by spills and leaks over three oE
'hjjjtAt of the utility's efforts to document cont.
decades of operanon, k
.O
!tu a 4 9,,
amination at the closed plant in prepa.
Prompted by concerns that the conta-5 O
" g]jS EE ration for dismantling it.
mination may have spread to areas out-k
,,, g 35 5 egg So far, usts of fill and, in one side the plant boundaries, NU and state
$h jjjg)g [g]b g
T instance, a used storage tank, that were environmental omcials began conduct-M
('
d or sold to 14 people, either plant ing soil and water tests in the area. Of
- 3 g$gjsj Jyees or residents, have found just 120 samples taken. NU and the state said
.J j 5
'3 ljIj;"3~oE g; E.
East Hampton. State environmental om.
was found to have had any level of cont.
g t
Jne instance of contamination..t only the East Hampton day. care center r
w m
8 CD 1$f1 g cials said the levels found there posed no amination, and that that level was very 3ss[
public health threat.
10W.
L.=
Exhibit c -n I s:lj,lin!!!!!Alh!!!di!11:iniili k!
jl je
-.vn
!h i'!
lih i
EElEEEE!
isasyJ!lbilimih umi oliliinain ip#a:g!!lj!!j;'Wii:
m W 5 4lj ya;3 11 s
!!I
'7 Eyk Q C-6~
VOL 114, NO.14 MNN. C' DN N' (O
w %&boobeBS Ma.rket place: Will3U surviveN.H. rate;cuth
. ~ -
t'
,7%
e r
m, e./ -
- i U 3g33 m dechnes in rates, which an the are an extreme example of what
^
. g.l - %,esm.n m
sw*.
m highest in the nation,'but now some other states have'in store they are struggling to deliver.
-as deregulanon spreads. '
Utility deregulation, which
' Tb do so, they run' the risk of " Northeast's stock had already has many states scrambling to, forcing the state's largest utility, fa!!en last year after the Nuclear come up with,1arge rate? cuts... Pub!!c Service _of...New Regulatory Commission shut 3 has put New, Hampshire in a.. Hampshire,into bankruptcyand :down the company's Millstune#
nasty bind., Regulators and, giving further shocks to stock tnuclear : plant in Connecticut.
politicians,have raised hopes : holders of its parent. company, 3 c.!u*i
.L.p No--
ges p; p_,,p @g'yf e-8 E b
-- - m,, m m m e n :. -
Market %,1EMWillWsurvive rate cut? -
., i#,
,m
.m.fM,.6 o
,,1 t, a.
. n.
g.. o g
At J C.i a.
os haw M M M.statei.. Pub!!c "*7titilit'ie's into legal limbo.
becM of proble'ms with bpe,r-the last year as thousands of res. - Comnussion issued an order What becomes apparent in
&av....
idents of New Hampshire saw eting procedures. But what sent 'their electric bills cut 15 to 20 aimed at deregulating the utility New Hampshire is that enn Northeast Utilities shares plung-industry by next July 1 and cut-when anyone is allowed to sell peteent under the nation's first ting rates across the board by power in the state, they can ing tids year was,the push to pggog program to. study the about 20 percent.
offer customers only relatively force the utility,to cut rates in New Hampshire.
impact of opening a state's utili-
' Public Service of New small savings - 5 percent at.
ties to competition. New Hampshire, which serws more most. 'Ib make the savings sig-
~ An inwstment adviser to the utility accently warned regula-Hampshire has recched wide than 80 pereent of the state's nificant in a pilot program, then,-
tors that unless they backed off, publicity for being the first to utilities customers,.is bearing. New Harapshire had to mandate give deregulation a try. And the main force of the driw for that its utilities provide a 10 per,
the utility might default on
~
local politicians, including the lower rates. After the commis-cent rate cut to some customers,-
about $500 million of secuntaes - Democratic gowrnor, Jeanne that haw to be refinanced next ston's order was issued, which means they lost money onj spring. The state, the adviser Shaheen, who pushed for the Northeast Utilities' stock fell 17 those customers.
warned, needs to reassure wor-experiment, haw basked in the percent in two days, from in the utility's reorganization:
ried stockholders.
resulting good will.
$11.625 to $9.625, a loss of $273 plan, it is committed to a certain-But the ability to' expand the million in market value, level of revenues and a certain:
In a recent report on Northeast Utilitaes, Penelope p lot program has been crippled Fearing that the order would value for its plants. But the util:
Adeanann, a utility analyst for by past commitments the state erode its revenue and force it tc, ity argues that if New-Gruntal & Co., recommended made to help put Public Service put a lower value on some Hampshire insists on similar:
that any imestors without the of New' Hampshire back on its assets, thus violating some ofits large savings for the rest of its:
stomach for risky speculation feet after it filed for Chapter 11 agreements with the creditors customers, its rewnues would, should sell the stock. She pre-bankruptcy protection in 1988. who had forced it into bank-be so low that it would end up dicted that the state's Public Just 17.000 customers are now ruptcy, the utility filed a suit in in default. The lower value,t Utili;y Commission would con-part of the pilot program. But, federal court in 'thode Island. A would haw to put on plants that tinuo to press f r, rate under pressure to pass the sav-Judge there issued a temporary would no longer be economical that the utility would,, cuts and ings on to the rest of the state's restraining order that threw the would also violate the 9
continue 600,000 utility customers, the whole deregulation experiment the plan.
to use the courts to block them.
blait ME Health studies show mixed results 9 - / 3'- 9 7-By STEPHANIE JOHNSON C'f-r~ ww De study found the elevated risk in colonetal cancer, 'other lymphoma, HADDAM - Health snwha of resi. Hodgkin's-disease, and trachea, dents in towns around the Connecticut bronchus and lung cancer for certain Yanlee plant show mixed results, but age groups. It also showed an elented higher levels for some forms of cancer. incidena risk for ther, bladder, tra-ne National Cancer Institute Study chen, bronchus and lung cancer for cer-in 1990 found Middlesex County, when tain age groups.
Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Another study done by the,
Plant is. located, showed an elevated Connecticut Department of Hea'th risk of death of numerous forms of can-See STUDES, A7 !
- From A1 The analysis suggests that Connecticut School of Medicine.
Services in 1987 compared inci-proximity to the facilities is not The program is not currently dence and mortality rates for 1 associated with an increased running because it is not fund-leukemia, lung, stomach, pan-risk of cancer incidence or mor-ed.
creas, and female breast cancer tality among the five cancers From the program a data for towns within 10 and 20 rfdles examined ne resean:hers are base was created using all births from Haddam Neck,It found no ' careful to note that the study in the state for 1983,1985 and significant increased risk of can-should not be regarded as pro-1986. It has been used to answer
~ cer from living near facilities. viding definite evidence of a ad hoc questions about birth
'While there was a finding of a casual relationship or lack there-defects in the state. De data marginal association with an of between cancer and nuclear base has been examined for increased risk oflung cancer for facilities.
information on any clustermg of those living within 20 miles of De mortality data showed birth defects around nuclear i
the facilities.
an elevated relatiw risk for col-reactors. The base does not
. The studies noted that due to orectal cancer in those 2009 show clu'stering but the informa-the differing conclusions of and 4049, for *other" lymphoma tion may be limited in predicting l
these two studies there is a need in those 4069; for Hodgkin's db-long term trends because of the for further research.
ease for those 60 and over, and small number of years,the base An interesting finding from for trachea, bronchus, and lung covers.
these studies was that living cancer for those 60 and owr.
near a facility appeared to offer A 1988 Connectictit law some protection from female established a birth defects sur-breast cancer. To be counted in veillance program in the these studies, the cancer must Division of Epidemiology of the haw been diagnosed during the Department of Community j
study period.
Redicine at the University of l
l l-l r
PORTLAND PRESS liERALD [ oct 8 M]
PAGE,M - F /ddCN7 [
P.O. Box 1460, Ponland, Maine o4104 5009 FAX 207 791 6924 cent. letterswcrtland.com Residents demand greater voice in Maine Yankee's cismantling
- New rules have in the process.
elimindteQ' the pubh'c'S (CWe want to be Beset by problems, the nuc! car wer lant stopped operating last nght to formal heanngs.
assured we,il be told fecemEer and shut dow for good dhout any in August its dismantling is sche.
duled to start as early as next fall.
By SUSAN RAYFIELD contanu. nation at file Tuesday's meetmg, chaired by Staff Writer site.3)
Sen. Marge K)! kelly, D4%scasset, was the Srst of two planned public WISCASSET - A federal Maria tiolt, meetings between residents and agency's efforts to oversee what it Bath the NRC. The second wG be held hcpes will the smooth dismantling hov. 6 at Wiscasset High School at of the Maine Yankee power p! ant 7 p.m.
snagged at a meeting'DJesdayn!ght ' NRC will supervise the dismantimg Despite the rneelings, sorne pre.
when residents demanded more say of the plant and decontamination of sent Tuesday had concems about m the process.
the site to restore the land to safe the lick of pub!c input in the The Nuclear Regulatory Com. public use.
decommissioning process.
niission held the meetmg to explain Many of the.60 people attending New rules created by the NRC in to residents its role in the decom-the heanog at Wiscasset Middic trbsion!ng of the piant that supplied School, however, were frustrated.
Please see YANidE power for the past 25 years. The that they didn't have more of a voice Bach page this scalon f
s
_ a_
a, up" Agency, rather than the easier
&'y Sen Sharon Treat, D Ganiiner, standards opted by the NRC.-
wondered when there would be a "We want Gov. King's attention Comhmedfrom Pap M chance to comment on the environ-en this, and we want him coming mentalimpact of the plan-down on the side of human and 1996 have eliminated the public's An environmental Erm w$ take ecological health," said activist Ray right to forrnal hearings NRC public samples of hazardous materials at Shad:s.
hearings don't cany legal weight, Mame Yankee beginning Oct 20 to "If the NRC cannot resemd its but ind;viduals can still 61e a petition assess the levels of chemicals and len:ent rules on raicactive conta-or an allegation with the NBC.
radioactiw material at the plant..rninadon, then we will call on the Others wondered how closely the Assessments wil! be completed in EPA to name the Maine Yankee regulatory agency will monitor the March, according to Michael Nuclear Waste s:te a Superfund plant.
Meisner, Mrinc Yankee's vice pre-. site." he said.
"In light of your most recent sident in charge of licenstr.g U.S. Rep. Tom A1:en announced allegations regarding the trustwor-A representative from Gov. Angus Tuesday that congressional negoti-thiness of Mame Yankee's report-King's o$ce told the gathering that alors have ir.cluded $185 million in ing. I should think you'd have a samp:es taken at the site willalso be rural development funds to help the concem about how hands on the ar.alyzed at the state public health midcoast region adjust to the clos-oversight will be," said Edgecomb lab. The NRC wG do independent ing of Maine Yankee.
On Monday, the NRC announced, sampling as wel!.
Itsident Andy Burt.
Next May, d.smantling wt!! begm that Maine Yankee deliberately in camest. By 2005, the p'. ant's size gave inaccurate infonnation to the could be reduced from 700 acres to agency in 198G, about the ability cf 10 acres, containing the highlevel steam valves to function in the spent fael storage area. The site event of probleras with the pir.nt's should be restored for pub'!c use by coolmg system.
March 2006 "We want to be assured we'll be In a statement released Tuesday, totd about any contamination at the Friends of the Coast said it woujd site," voiced Bath resident Maria collect signatures for a petition Holt a member of the Citizens asking Gov. Kmg to support the Monitoring Network. "And we don't tough rad:ation standards set by want to have to pay for cleaning it the U.S. Emironmental Protection u
i
~-
4 t
hfpg/7 C/g LINCOLN COUNTY WEEKLY 10/16/97 PAGEONE Post Omcc Box 12878. Darnariscotta, Maine 04841 1 -800 559-4401 Senator backs anti-nuke request
- adreinistrative judge with official BY KRIS FERrV22A testmony.
The 25-ye.at old Maine Ya:kee W ASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen.
plant in Wiscanct is in the early Olympia Scowe (R-Maine) gave the auges of its deeor::uinlocag. After efforts cf a local and naclear group the company's boud of directors some polideal cloutlut Friday.
voted to permanently close the
.cn Oct.10 Snows seriounced pow er stayon is August, managers that like the Edgecomb based
& peu of pluQg for Friends of the Coast group, she to 6 dis @g of ee fd4 is cal!1ogfor the Nucleat Regu! story NRC inspecton stil ovenor, the Com:nission (b'RC) to bold public procs, elch is expectgle tais at beanegs during the decomminion. ! cut seveo years ed cost an esti-leg of the Malee Yankee nu,! car M $5% million.
c power staten.
3 ;.., g, f,p
~
The federal regulatiocs t!.at gov-
- ,[,.,,,
crn the proccas of scaring down old
,f., '
'
- 1,6.4 power plants and cleaning up their
+'
sites were changed lut year. M,ere formalpublic heati:ss had beenheld 4$'
,eg '.f, l
la the past, they were replaced by g
it.formatiocal meetiggs. Criucs say de public is getting short shrift by.
h.:
b l
i the public mec:!sgs, which are con-
.,,k biMu:3 and have nolegalbacking; Snowe wrote NRC chairwocnan e
Shirley Jaetson and suggested that the process should be changed again, and the fonnal public hear-icgs should be reinstated, callicg it is a rr.atter of "publ;c tut."
Ray Sbadis, a foundi:g cember M.Wa Sh
'I l
of Fricads of the Cout, si;d Tun-i day be wu pleued to bave be seca-Is the cett few m,cels,Wice tor's suppo t.
Yankee plans to ask the Federal "It's good news to vs." he said.
Eccrgy Regulatory Cor:miss'on'
- We are really bappy to haye (FERC) to order a.rste i:drute so' Olympia Snowe recognize this ra:epayen would fuco a aaticips'ed defect in NRC procr4 ares, and say decommissloctog shortfall 'of l
. Somenhing about it."
. approx.irmately 5300 million. Since
[
In the meantimac Friends of th*
1981, funds have beco ses aside fx l
Coast and soother New Ecgland the eventual decomminaio:iog of l
ast cuctur smup. Cistee Aware' mine Yuw, but that dued has cess Network,together have offi-
- dW lus b $190'mi!! ion clally filed a petitico for a rules to da'.e[
change with NRC. Is it. Shais ad plant offic als and NRC repre.
they uk the agency to resetad the senutives also will hold a public rule that thrticated public beancgs' seeri:g Thursday, Nov. 6 al 7 p.m.
Members have argued that public at Wisc4sset Egh Sca.ol to hear meetiegs" are quits differest das questloss a:d public com=ccis formal public beanngs vibcb carry ww,,g, g.gg3;en, legal weight and are held befort as g g
l
h K///,p3g g LINCOLN COUNTY NPWS ( 10/16/97 )
PAGEONE Post Ofice Bm 36, Damatiscona, Maine 04543 Snowe asks NRC to bring public
~
back into decommissioningprocess By luck nackeray Folloulog a series of 1996 national priorities ' list of Maine's mer. lor. U.S. senator la guidances, the public's rcle in contamihtted sites. commonly '
calling on the Nuclear Rega.tlatory voleingenvimntnentaleoncemswith known as the Superfand, hasn't Commission to return to old t).a decommissierJng process have aggressiveJy been arplied to NRC proc *res thatinvolve the public tr) twen lessened, accor6r.g to ant. sites.
the decortLmiksloning pmcess.
nuclear activist Ray Shad.a. Shais. NRC Chair Jackson has reelsted in a letter drafted to h7C Chalt believes that public beanrgs where EPA attempf4 to a pply CERCLA to Sen. Olympia the commission la forced to be nuclear plant sites, recently Shltley Jackson, dy to reinalitute accountable to the pubuc for its culminatingina draftmemorandum Snowe asked the bo a formal beartr.g process before an oversight of decoramisstorung have of understanding sent to EPA head admir,16trative judge to address t+en watered down into a settes of CaroIProwner asking the agency to cittgene' concerns during the "informaumalmeetings"wherethe back of( from attempts to asstri decommisaloning proces.
NRC " doe sn't have to be cordrol in NRC's environmental Currtauy, the NRC f alls under the accountable to anything we say." scoping effetsc statutory authority of the National Cittsens were critical of the h7C Though other members of the Environmaatal Potles Act (NEPA) for their new heartrg policies at an Senate, includfrig Sen. Frank whl& established a pro ess informaUeralmeeting inWistasset, Murkowski (R Arkanr.as) and Sen.
of1M9lch federal e,encies access enOct.l.5hadis'a group,Friendsof Pete Domenici (R New by wh and pub!!ah the environmental thecoastassinathuclearPouubon. Mexico)believe EPA's pressure impacts of activities they conduct floated a peutlenta Gov. Arcs King supercedes its authority and down't and the EnWronmentti Pfvtettien to support a drive by EPA to force comply with the rules federal NRC to comply with its NEPA agencies are to follow in adopting Agency to artforce it.
Since the incepuon of the two standard 3orbeheldaceauntablefor newpolicies,thereistalkonCapitol bodies, NRC has implernented a more stringent set cf EU about pushir.g. ether federal policies that have been honor *d by environmentalguidelines adoptadic agenciesto pessure NRC tocomply the EPA tn the way d addressing timo.
sith CERCLA.
NEPA hearing regulations and The Compreh.ecstve toviron. Snowe's letter and a letter by envinnmental impact statementa enenta] Response.Comrenaationand Murkowski and Domenici are the (E15s) for all nuclear planta in one 1,tabiltty Act of 19a0 (CERCLA) See DECOMMISSIONING page ll which mardated that EPA set a process.
._Decommissioninge
. e Coellowed from pagt one '
first to assert' that formal saye thstagencieel.ke NRCandthe a rulemakings be pursued by EPA and Department of Defecse have rJways i NRC to establah what procedures battled with EPA over policy,
and standards a decommissioning standards. "It's a typical back and nuclear plant maat fotb*.
forth kind af thing there's always a battle tatween EPA ard hTC over NRC apakesperson Neu Sheehan say that Snowc's charge tas been tonflictirs rules,"she sa.id,"At this,
mistorJtrued by the public and ln a gericy, we iurtly consider effects of sir, and land."
fact she is "eceograging us to actions on water, hatSnowe'svoice esntinue to MUcit as much publje Shadia bebeves t willlaely be heard taause of her,
comment as we c4n."
"We da cat hold pubbe hearings, stature within both sides of the I what s e bold are putlk meetings... Senate. "I've never really liked her and we're going to hear what the (positora) very much, but she's e public has to say and we're go!ng to seU krion figure and she's we!ghed take that leto consideration." in on our side," he said.
Sheehaa said. "We have said that w e "What goes down in Maine la going will ensure that the site ts ejeased gp to have national repercusslorJ. so for unrestricted use den to 25 Friends of the Coast wants the rest snilhtains or as low u what is of our et N:ressional dejegation to achjevableat thatsite,andwetg detnand pubile accountat@ty for that is a reasonable standard."
every detail in regard to the
, EPA spdespenon Ma+tha CaSey environrnent of our coast."
.-1
)
Statement rfAttorney Ge:er:t Richtrd Blumenthal
- ExH/otr 1)-l Connecticut Yankee Decommissionsng Testimony (September 16,1997)
Connecticut Attorney General's Office News Release Connectkut Yankee Decommissioning Testimony Statement of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (Hartford, Tuesday, September IC,1997)"What we have here is a nuclear management nightmare of Northeast Utilities' own making. The goal is no longer to decommission a nuclear power plant, but rather to decontaminate a nuclear waste dump. The company's $426 million cost estimate for decomissioning is likely to be only a fraction of the final cost of finding the contamination, removing it, and clean'mg it up.
Whatever the cost, we reject and repudiate the company's call for ratepayers to bear the burden of the decommissioning and decontamination. This cost should be solely the responsibility of those -
who created thir nuclear fe.sco.
Equally outrageous.is the fact that most of the information concerning the nuclear mismanagement and radioactive conta,.dnation at Connecticut Yankee was largely concealed from both regulators and the pub!!c by Northeast Utilities. This testimony marks the first time that these nuclear incidents have been disclosed and constitutes a stunning, scorching indictment of the management of Connecticut Yankee.
More alarming than what we know is what we don't know about the extent of the radiological contamination at Connecticut Yankee. The company does not know how much of the site is contaminated and has not conducted the type of testing necessary to find out. The need for testing is immediate and c! ear, because what we do not know, in this instance, can hurt us.
We will use all available means, including the courts, to fight any effort to compel consumers to pay one nickel of the cost necessary to repair the contamination caused by the company. The widespread radioactive contamination is the result of blatant nuclear mismanagement that should continue to be investigated, and those managers responsible should be neld accountable.
To quote our testimony, NU ' effectively lost control over contamination for more than 25 years' and 'effectivel created an unanalyzed, undocumemed, nuclear waste dump site in the State of Connecticut.' This grass mismanagement is inexcusable and the citizens of the state will rightly be outraced, as I am."
"NU's own documents describe radioactive contamination 'in the plant farking lot, in the soil, in the septic system, in the silt of the discharge canal, on the roofs, in the water wells on the peninsula and even at a shooting range located three-quarters of a mile way.
"Our testimony describes NU's operational practices and its radiological controls as ' sloppy,'
' ineffective,' ' unreasonable' and ' imprudent.'
w w
ExHtair p-j Statement ofAttorney GcneralRichard Blumenthal Page 2 Connecticut Yankee Decommissioning Testimony (September 16.1997)
Some of the practices that led to the excessive level of radioactive contamination at the site included:
an exce'sive level of radioactive waste generation due to two significant fuel failures; e
unmonitored floor and roof drains in radioactive areas that allow:d the discharge of e
contaminated liquids directly into the soil; unmonitored excavation and movement of contaminated meteriale both on and off the site; e
uncontrolled outdoor processing of radioactive waste that permitted contaminated e
mate.ials to run offinto soil, arphalt and wetlands.
Incredibly, NU also failed to follow the reporting requirements established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when radioactive discharges occurred.
Our testimony indicates that 'most radioactive materials have been contained within the plant or on Company property' and that '[the contaminants should pose no large scale or immediate risk to the health and safety of the public.' Aggressive action must be taken to identify the contaminated areas and contain the contamination before it spreads further."
Editors note: On Monday at 5:00 p.m., the Oflice of the Attorney General and the Departmem of Public Utility Centrol filed testimony at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as part of their ongoing case to block Northeast Utilities from imposing on ratepayers the cost of decommissioning and decontaminating the Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. Previous actions include:
In January 1997, Blumenthal and the DPUC initiated legisti.: ion that enabled them to hire outside counsel to conduct an investigation of Connecticut Yankee, which resulted in this testimony, at the cost ofNortheast Utilitie:.
On April 24, 1997, Blumenthal hired outside counsel e.nd a nuclear expert to investigate'the nuclear waste management practices at Connecticut Yankee.
In June 17 1997, Blumenthal and the DPUC filed initial testimony with FERC demonstrating nuclear mismanagement at Connecticut Yankee.
June 18, 1997, Blumenthal and DPUC called on FERC to deny any further ratepayer responsibility for the cost of decommissioning Connecticut Yankee. plant.
4 SYN /8/7 2)~2.
Connecticut Attorney General's Office News Rel ase Blumenthal Criticizes NU's Veiled Attempt to Get Consumers to Pay for Mismanagement of Nuclear Plants (Hartford, Wednesday, June 11,1997) Attomey General Richard Blumenthal said today that a Northeast Utilities filing this week with state utility regulators could signal a reversal by the utility and a massive request for consumers to foot the bill for costs associated with nuclear outages.
" Northeast Utilities has repeatedly assured consumers that it would not ask them to pay for the decade of mismanagement at the nuclear plants," Blumenthal said. "But this filing apparently indicates that NU believes its costs were ' normal' and should be paid for by consumers. How the company could consider four nuclear power plants closed down at the same time as 'nonnal' is beyond comprehension."
NU's filing with the State Department of Public Utility Control details many of the company's put and projected outage-related costs - nearly $1 billion -- and specifically defends many of them as necessary and prudent costs.
In addition, NU paid consultants dispute an independent state audit that criticized NU for its mismanagement ofits nuclear plants.
"Instead of facing its problems, NU is trying to rewrite history and deflect its mismanagement of its plants by claiming that these costs are nonnat and prudent,"
Blumenthal sait..
"NU does not deserve a dime from ratepayers for the costs associated with these outages," Blumenthal said. "There should not be any surcharge for consumers to pay for the company's systematic mismanagement of these plants."
"This is an affront to all of the ratepayers who, thanks to NU's misman>gement, live with the prospect of brownouts and blackouts that could disrupt their lives and their jobs,"
Blumenthal said. "Even the suggestion that NU customers could be asked to pay for NU's problems is outrageous "
"Even NU apptaently recognizes how outrageous any request is," Blumenthal said.
"Though this filing states theii case in hundreds of pages and attempts to justify millions of dollars in costs as ' prudent,' the company never states how much of the money it wants."
n
-4
EMrarr b-3 Connec ticut Anorney General's Offce News Release Blumenthal Hails DPUC Action to Bicek Northeast Utilities Effort To Get Consumers To Pay for Nuclear Outage Costs (Hanford, Friday, June 27,199") Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today praised a decision by state utility regulators to reject Nonheast Utiliti-s' effor ;o get consumers to pay for up to $340 million in costs related to the year long outages at Connecticut's four nuclear plants.
"These requests were an affront to all electric customers," Blumenthal said, "NU executives tried to pass the buck to customers -- literally millions of bucks. I am pleased that state utility regulators saw through this transparent attempt to get customers to pay for the company's history of mistakes."
Blumenthal last week asked the Depanment of Public Utility Control to dismiss Nonheast Utilities' request to get customers to pay for outage costs related to management's mistakes.
Blumenthal's request followed a filing earlier this month by Northeast Utilities where the company attempted to lay the groundwork for customers to pay a portion of the estimated
$1 billion associated with the shutdown of NU's four nuclear plants.
I On Wednesday, NU Chainnan Bernard Fox said the company might request up to $340 million -- most of which was spent to buy replacement power while all the plants were closed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That would have been a 12 percent rate increase.
The very thought that customers could have seen their rates rise is outrageous,"
Blumenthal said. "Nonheast Utilities mtsmanaged the nuclear plants and is responsible for all costs associated with those outages."
Blumenthal said he wasastonished that NU - after months of documented mismanagement-- would even ask its customers to pay for its mistakes.
The company's effort to rewrite history and make up excuses for why it should not be held responsible for these costs should end here," Blumenthal said. " Connecticut consumers have had it with his company's excuses."
l l
l l
--,,-r
-w e-,
,,w,wc, v-
-me
r--,
-w n
EXH/877 D-f Connecticut Attorney General's Ofice News Release Attorney General Urges DPUC to Give CL &P Customers Credits (Hartford, Friday, June 6,1997) Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today said
- Connecticut Light & Power customers should get credits on their electric bills this summer because they cannot count on reliable electric service.
Blumenthal, in a filing with state utility regulators, urged them to order a one-time, 25 percent credit because the threat of browrouts and blackouts has reduced the quality of service for CL&P customers.
Blumenthal said the Department of Public Utility Control also should order additional credits of up to 20 percent if the lights dim or go out in any month this sununer.
Blumenthal's request comes as all the state's nuclear plants remain shut down by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission because of operational and ' safety concems. And CL&P customers are being wamed of possible brownouts and blackouts if there is not enough power to meet demand.
"CL&P customers cre paying too much for electric service that they can no longer rely on," Blumenthal said. "These rates were not granted with the expectation ~ that, at any time, residential and business customers might face brownoutr or blackouts."
" Customers should be compensated for the uncertainty created by the mismanagement of these nuclear plants and all customers should receive credits in each month when brownouts or blackouts occur," Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal's proposal to the DPUC calls for a one-time credit of $20 or 25 percent, whichever is greater, based on customers' July usage. That would amount to about $33 million in customer credits.
In addition, Blumenthal said all CL&P customers sho'ald receive a $10, or 15 percent, credit - whichever is greater - in any month when there is one day of brownouts or blackouts r.nd a $15, or 20 percent, credit -- whichever is greater -- in any month where there are two days of brownouts or blackouts.
I e
l
=_.
Eviwer
,2)-f Connecticut Attomey General's Oflice News Release Officials Urge Detailad Review of Proposed Closing of Connecticut Yankee Plant and Costs to Rate Payers (Hartford, Monday, Januany 6,1997) Attomey General Richard Blumenthal and Department of Public Utility Control Chairman Reginald Smith today urged federal energy officials to carefully consider the costs of shutting down the Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant in Haddam and what part of the closing costs will be charged to ratepayers.
In a letter to Elizabeth Anne Moler, chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Blumenthal and Smith urged a careful review of the estimated closing costs and those bome by ratepayers.
"To properly assess ratepayers' liability for the costs of closing Ccnnecticut Yankee, the Commission must, therefore, review riot only NU's economic analysis but must additionally determine whether final closure was the result of mismanagement or imprudence," Blumenthal and Smith wrote.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is required to approve the cost of pennanently closing nuclear plants and is responsible for determining which of those costs should eventually be bome by ratepayers.
Blumenthal and Smith noted that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found that NU failed to properly operate its nuclear plants, which have been plagued by a host of safety and technical violations.
"We believe that the unique circumstances surrounding the decision to close the Connecticut Yankee plant require the FERC to enhance its effort in protecting the public interest in this matter and assure, with added diligence, that any ratepayer consequence for the early retirement of the Connecticut Yankee plant does not reward a failed management," Blumenthal and Smith wrote.
--