ML20235M760
| ML20235M760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#189-8254 OLA, NUDOCS 8902280412 | |
| Download: ML20235M760 (126) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:JR 3 XA_ UNITED STATES O-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i l m as as.. am am as um as sm am am am as am am as am mm am an am am an as.. am as am.. um an as. am as sm as am as su mm am as su mm as sm as am m ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i In the Matter of: ) ) GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) Docket No. 50-320 OLA CORPORATION, d al. ) ) (THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2) ) LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION ) PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRESENTATION OF LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENTS O Pages: 998 through 1121 Place: Lancaster, Pennsylvania Date: November 3, 1988 I i .......................................................e T HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION onkW Reporters z9 1220 L Street, N.W., Suke 600
- iic :
Washington, D.C. 20005 gi,f, M,a ; :.,ox"/p'_ (202) 628 4888 u oca -.c
w a-998 UNITED. STATES NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD > j']., In the Matter.of: ) ) GENERAL'PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR ) -Docket No. 50-320.OLA -CORPORATION, 31 al. ) ) (THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2) ) i LICENSE-AMENDMENT APPLICATION ) PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRESENTATION OF LIMITED' APPEARANCE STATEMENTS L I
- Thursday, November 3, 1988 j
1 Courtroom A &' Sixth 1 Floor Hearing Room 'Lancaster County Courthouse ) 50 North Duke Street Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 ~(\\/~p The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 7:00 p.m. BEFORE: JUDGE. PETER BLOCH, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 'U.S. Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1 JUDGE OSCAR PARIS, MEMBER Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,1D.C. 20555 i l JUDGE GLENN O. BRIGHT, MEMBER l Atomic Safety & Licensing Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) Washington, D.C. 20555 1 l 1-I,' I. Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 m N t
999 . APPEARANCES: l On behalf of the Licensee, GPU Nuclear Coro.: THOMAS A. BAXTER, Esquire DAVID R.-LEWIS, Esquire U MAURICE A. ROSS, Esquire-Shaw,'Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, P.C. 2300'"N" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 ROBERT E. ROGAN Director of Licensing & Nuclear Safety for GPU Nuclear Corp. Three Mile Island Unit 2 On behalf of the'U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Staff: STEPHEN H. LEWIS, Esquire COLLEEN P.;WOODHEAD, Esquire-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 On behalf'of the Commonwealth of Pennsvivania: RICHARD MATHER, Esquire Assistant Counsel AJIT BRATTACKARYYA l Bureau of Radiation Protection GAIL B. PHELPS, Esquire Assistant Counsel-Bureau of Regulatory Counsel 1 Department of Environmental Resources 505 Executive House 101 S. Second Street P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 .On behalf of the Joint Interveners, Susquehanna Vallev Alliance & Three Mile Island Alert: FRANCES SKOLNIK j 2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster, Pennsylvania Heritage Reporting Corporation () (202) 628-4888 i
1000 C2HIEUIE . Tax 52Ndx STATEMENTS: PAGE: cs ( ) ^# MARY STAMOS OSBORN, 4951 Highland Street 1007 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111 ERIC EPSTEIN, Rd #1, Box 435A 1016 Liverpool, Pennsylvania 17045 HON. KENNETH E. BRANDT, Member, 98th District 1026 House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Village of Falmouth Bainbridge, Pennsylvania 17502 BETTY WICKSTROM, 1937 Temple Avenue 1032 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 DORIS ROBB, 1719 Manor Ridge Dr. 1037 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 ELIZABETH M. CHAVEY, 114 Donald Ave. 1043 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 KARL Z. MORGAN, Presented by: 1045 FRANCES SKOLNIK, 2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster, Pennsylvania MARY STAMOS OSBORN (Further Statement) 1065 g-)s 4951 Highland Street (_ Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111 JAMES McINTOSH, 338 N. Fine Street 1066 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603 AL MANIK, 919 Hoffer 1073 Middletown, Pennsylvania ELISE NEYER-BOTHLING, 506 Fairmont Ave. 1075 Towson, Maryland 21204 -) TOM BAILEY 1083 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17104 d l DON HOSSLER 1089 BETTY TOMPKINS, 151 Hostetter Ln. 1092 ) Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602 (Statements continued on the next page) Heritage Reporting Corporation (~\\ (202) 628-4888 %,) l i
(: I 1001 ~' STATEMENTS (Continued) : p-VERA'STUCHINSKI,- 319 Peffer St. 1095 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania'17102. JOHN S..KOVALIC 1101 Middletown,-Pennsylvania 17057 i PAT BIRNIE, P.O. Box 902 1102' Columbia,.-Maryland 21045 KAY PICKERING, 315 Peffer Street 1105 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 l l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1002 INSERTS-PAGE:
== Description:== .O; " Third Set'of Comments Relative to Treatment 1053 and-Disposal of 2,100,000 Gal. of Contaminated Water at TMI-2" by Karl Z. Morgan, September 30, 1988 Two pages containing. copies of various~ newspaper '1081 articles concerning the possible adverse health effects of nuclear radiation Copy:of, signed petition, with 11 pages of 1110 signatures, opposing."...any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment..." l 0 O i j ) l I Heritage Reporting Corporation .( ) (202) 628-4888 i
p 1003 73/Blac EYE'EIEG EEEEIQH L 1 (7:00 p.m.) ~2 JUDGE BLOCH: Good evening. I'm Peter Bloch. I 3 am Chairman of the Licensing Board for the case involving an 4 application for an amendment by General Public Utilities for 5 the purpose of evaporating water that has been generated 6 from the Three Mile Island accident. 7 It is my privilege, with deep respect, to welcome 8 all of you wholeheartedly to this evening of limited 9 appearance statements. I would like to say a word about 10 what that is. 11 When I'first went on the road as a Judge for the 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I saw this provision for 13. Limited Appearance Statements, and I wondered what it was 14 all about. We go to a community, and we hear people talking 15 to us. And we are directed that we are to decide the case 16 on the record, which means that what we hear has no 1 17 evidentiary value.in the case that we are listening to. i 18 I thought about that for a while. And there are 1 19 two purposes to limited appearance statements which are 20 real, and they are not just appearances. i 21 One is that if there is anything new, of tecnnical { 22 importanceu that comes te us tonight, we are permitted to j 23 declare new issues in the case, with the permission of the l .24 Commission. That would be done by our issuing an order that Heritage Reporting Corporation (} (202) 628-4888
1004 1 there was a sua sponte issue. And the Commission would have ,_ 2 the opportunity to review that order. \\_) 3 The second reason has to do with the way in which 4 the human mind works. It turns out that Judges are as 5 objective as they can possibly be. That's their job. And 6 they look at the evidence, and they sift that evidence and 7 decide what is correct and rational. They look at the 8 arguments of the parties, and decide who wins. But we are 9 all human beings, and we all have beliefs and attitudes. 10 And it could be that by listening to people, there could be 11 some subtle effect on how the evidence is received and what 12 we notice. 13 It's our job as Judges to be as objective as 14 possible, and to put those things aside and disregard them. f s15 But as human beings, we are both human beings and Judges. O 16 Tonight, I have correspondence from people who 17 sought to appear this evening. And we also can permit i 18 people who did not correspond to appear this evening. 19 I would like to call a roll of those people whom I 20 expect to speak t-his os sn12.g, to see if they are here. 21 The first person I know is here. It's Mary 22 Osborn, who is over here. And she will be speaking first. 23 Doris Robb and Doris -- it's Doria Pobb. Doris M. 24 Rotb. Is she here? 25 (Response from audience) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s o 1005 1- ' JUDGE'BLOCH: She will be.here?' Okay. I'had f(2 scheduled her to speak'second. I will move h0 to the end Lry 3' ' of the : list, > because she's not 'here. 4 Kathleen Prendergast? 5 (No response) 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Eric Epstein? Thank you. You will 7-be' speaking'second. 8 Steve Snell? 9 (No response) i 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Steve'Snell is not here. 11 Representative Kenneth Brandt? You-will be 12 speaking third,. sir. 13 'This is the order in which'I. received the 14 correspondence. r s,15 Betty Wickstrom? Fourth. I \\/ l 16 And fifth will be Elizabeth Chavey. And she's i 17 back there, but she signed up this evening, so I knew she 1 18 was here. 19 Is there anyone else who would like to speak this 20 evening?- l 21' (A show of hands) 1 22 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm going to just count, I'm going 23 to count hands. 24 One, two, three, four, five, six, seven is what I 25 count. Seven. 1 I i 1 i i Heritage Reporting Corporation f} (202) 628-4888 1 1
p. 1 1006 V .1 JUDGE PARIS: Four,-five, six, seven, eight -- I 2-count nine. ~ %) 3 - JUDGE:BLOCH: Nine you count? Somewhere between '4-seven and'nine. l5 JUDGE, PARIS: Let's see those hands again. We 6: disagree on the count. One, two, three,'four, five,'six, 7 seven,'eight. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: What I would like to do this evening 9 is to limit each presentation to ten minutes, unless there E10 is a special need for someone to speak beyond that. It's a. 11 question.of everyone having a fair opportunity.. 12 Mary Osborn, when she wrote, requested 20 minutes, [ f13 and'she has some slides to show. So I've granted her the 20-14 minutes. rs15-If there is some special reason that you are done . V ' 16. with your ten minutes and you still have a reason to speak, 17 just address yourself to me about'why it is you need to 18 continue and what is left to say, and we will decide whether 19 we can give you an extension of time for that purpose. 20 So that it's now time for our first person, who is 21 Mary Osborn. Welcome. 22 JUDGE PARIS: All right. I will turn out the 23 lights for this show and ask the photographer to please do 24 the same. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want to say something first, o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [ b 9 p_.
1007 1 before the lights go out? 2 . STATEMENT OF MARY STAMOS OSBORN 73 i) 3 MS. OSBORN: Let me say something, while I can 4. remember, in order. % have some terrible mess. 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Use the microphone, so people can 6 hear you. 7 MS. OSBORN: Okay. My name is Mary Osborn. And I 8 live six and a half miles North-Northwest of Three Mile 9 Island in Swatara Township. 10 The governments and official scientists 11 deliberately refuse to remember that pollution effects are 12 synergistic and cumulative. I oppose any release of 13 radioactive into our environment, including the evaporation i 14 of the radioactive cleanup water. r~T15 Years ago, we, the people, were promised by your (/ 16 agency that TMI would not be a waste site, but would be 17 cleaned up. And apparently, they've lied. 18 The people of TMI have suffered cumulative 19 exposure from TMI since 1974. We have been rained upon by 20 the bomb test fallout in the '50s, ' 60s and ' 70s. We were 21 exposed to thousands of curies of radioactive fallout from 22 the Three Mile Island accident, and also from the rains of l 23 Chernobyl fallout. 24 In 1982, we were told by the NRC Commissioners 25 when the people voted two to one, three to one and four to l l Heritage Reporting Corporation L (~] (202) 628-4888 l s_- l
1008 1 one opposing the restart, that TMI, that our vote would be 2 taken into consideration. ,s I i 3 When I read the closed meetir.g transcripts of the 4 NRC Commissioners, we found out that they lied to us again. 5 They never once considered if TMI would restart. It was 6 always when. 7 Not only have we been lied to by the NRC, but 8 crucial evidence was withheld at the leak rate issue by the 9 NRC Staff. TMI control room operators cheated on their 10 tests even after the accident. And Admiral Rickover, when 11 he was alive, had influenced President Carter. And I have 12 an excerpt. Rickover used his enormous personal influence 13 with President Carter to persuade him to publish the Kemeni 14 Commission Report in a highly diluted form. This means e s15 there was a coverup of the TMI accident and its effects. () 16 The people of TMI have suffered cumulative 17 radiation exposure and that is the theme of what I want to 18 say to you. 19 The lights can go out now. 20 (Slides being shown) 21 MS. OSBORN: I've been to Germany where I have 22 seen some of the effects that I intend to show you tonight. 23 (Slide) 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Do you want these lights on or off? 25 MS. OSBORN: This is fine, as long as you can see. Heritage Reporting Corporation t'T (202) 628-4888 l \\-) I L-_____________
1009 1 This is taken from-a science book'and these are 2' African Violets. The violet in'the center is a. normal O 3 African violet. All the rest are specimens from the same 4 _ plant..When you look at this, they.look diseased'and 5 deformed. But these were all given-one X-ray dose and they '6 .are all mutations around the center plant. 7 (3lide) 8' MS. OSBORN: This is a normal daisy from my 9 ne'ighborhood. 10 (Slide) 11 MS. OSBORN: This is a daisy found after the TMI-12 . accident that is almost a double daisy. This is called a 13 stem fasciation. 14 (Slide) 15 MS. OSBORN: This is another daisy that is double 16 from my neighborhood. These have been found every year 17' since the TMI accident in my neighborhood and other areas 18 identified by the NRC document NUREG-0600. 19: (Slide) 20 MS. OSBORN: Again, this is another daisy in my 21 . neighborhood with many multiple heads and a very flat stem. 22 (Slide) 23 MS. OSBORN: This is a daisy that has another one '24 growing out of the back. I've only seen one of these. 25 (Slide) Heritage Reporting Corporation ) (202) 628-4888 i -- o
a f 1010 1 MS. OSBORN:.This is a-buttercup from my backyard. l2' I've had these four years in a row. 3 - (Slide) 4 MS. OSBORN: This is a mutation of color where the 5 flowers should be red. The leaves should be dark green, and ~ '6 they are almost pale, with red stripes through them. 7 (Slide) 8-MS. OSBORN: This is a classic mutation. This was 9-found in ' Lancaster County in August of ' 84. 10 (Slide) 11 MS. OSBORN: These are Queen Anne's Lace and Queen 12 Anne's Lace is normally white, not pink. 13 (Slide) 14 MS. OSBORN: Again, this is a closeup of Queen 15 Anne's Lace with purple edging. 16 (Slide) -17 MS. OSBORN: And this is another Queen Anne's Lace 18 with one growing out of the bottom. 19 (Slide) 20 MS. OSBORN: These are difficult to see, but they 21' are marigolds. The marigolds in this area that I found were 22 stunted, they had thick, leathery leaves and the flowers on 23 the left had petals that were in the shape of needles, not 24 flat petals. 25 (Slide) j I Heritage Reporting Corporation (} (202) 628-4888
1011 This 's the same effect: a stunted i i-l' MS. OSBORN: 2 mari' gold. 3 (Slide) 4 MS. OSBORN: This is a rose I found in my 5-neighborhood. It had a rosebud growing through the center 6-of it. 7 (Slide) -8 MS. OSBORN: This is a mustard weed with the dark 9 yellow being normal and the very pale being abnormal. 10 (Slide) 11 MS. OSBORN: These are dandelion flowers. I've 12 found these every year since the accident all over the Three 13 Mile Island area. I've had these in my yard every year 14~ since the accident. Sometimes there are multiple heads on f 315 these and sometimes there's just one flat head. V 16 (Slide) 17 MS. OSBORN: These are the dandelions that we 18 found that were growing on an area West of'TMI. These 19 leaves were about 31 inches long. They are not on a manure 20 pile.like GPU says. We found three separate clumps at this 21 man's property. His neighbor also has had these growing in 22 his yard since TMI accident. 23 (Slide) 24 MS, OSBORN: This is the leaf picked and this was 25-a leaf next to it that was the largest one we could find of Heritage Reporting Corporation j} (202) 628-4888
_ = _ _ _ _ _ j, l 1 1012 1 dandelions. -( 2 (Slide) / \\ /' 3 MS. OSBORN: These are the same leaves that were, 4_ a few years later, that were dried. 5 (Slide) 6 MS. OSBORN: This is a maple leaf from my backyard-7 that grew in a very full circle. 0-(Slide) 9-MS. OSBORN: This is a rudbud leaf that had white 10 streaks through it. And many leaves, especially maple, have 11 had this effect. 12 .(Slide) 13 MS. OSBORN: This is a clover. You can't see it. 14, There are two white leaves and one green leaf. And this was 15 in my front yard. 16 (Slide) 17 MS. OSBORN: This is a farm near TMI. The tree, 18' the bark on this tree had peeled off. The leaves grew 19 extremely huge, very thick, leathery. And instead of being 20 bi-pronged, they were three pronged. This farm had many 21 problems with their animals, and they also had human health 22 effects. 23 (Slide) l 24 MS. OSBORN: This is a cemetery that shows TMI i i 25 approximately eight miles Northwest of the plant. Behind me Heritage Reporting Corporation ' /) (202) 628-4888
1013' 1 when 1 took this photo is'the office of the dentist where 2-all'75' dental films were fogged the first two daya of the ,, g ~# 3. accident, Wednesday-and Thursday. The NRC says there was no 4 film fogging. And this is a blatant lie. Even the manager .5 of the store in Goldsboro has told us that film had been -6 fogged. 7 (Slide) 8-MS. OSBORN: This is a tree that, if you would 9 draw a line between TMI and the dentist's office, this tree 10 is on that exact plume line and you can see there, in my 11 opinion, there was radiation damage at the top of this tree. 12' There appears to be a massive, bushy growth in the center 13 which'is also very abnormal. 14 (Slide) ( s15-MS. OSBORN: This is a tree across the street from r-) 10 TMI that was a small, ornamental maple tree. And 17 apparently, the huge dark branch in the center had reverted 18 back to its original type. The leaves were all solid green 19 instead of being edged in white and the leaves were two and .20 three-pronged instead of being five-pronged like maple 21 leaves are. 22 (Slide) 23 MS. OSBORN: And this is one of the protests at l 24 TMI. 25 And that's all the slides I have for now. But I l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (} (202) 628-4888
1014 1 have a few brief comments to make. 2 MS. OSBORN: When I found these effects, I didn't l 7 s, N-) \\ 3 know very much about it, other than they were abnormal. The i 4 more I have learned, and after talking to two experts who 5 have done research at Brookhaven Laboratory, they both have i 6 said that these are radiation effects. 7 Dr. James Gunkel -- and all of this evidence was 8 presented to the NRC Commissioners themselves, and it has 9 even been televised -- Dr. James Gunkel had examined t 10 specimens under a microscope. And he wrote an affidavit, 11 May 18, 1984, which I will give you, and I will read one 12 sentence from it: 13 In other words, it would have been possible for 14 the types of plant abnormalities observed to have been (~JS15 induced by radioactive fallout March 29, 1979. l 16 This was the second day of the accident. 3,000 17 millirems, at least, was documented to be released. And we s 18 evacuated only at 1,200 millirems. 19 The paper I have here is from Germany. And I only 20 show it to you and give it to you so you can compare that 21 they also had similar effects from Chernobyl fallout. 22 In 1979, Mayor Reed of Harrisburg was a 23 Representative. And he wrote a letter to the NRC, Chairman 24 Hendry, where he listed symptoms that people had during the 25 accident. These symptoms include metallic taste, irritated, Heritage Reporting Corporation (~)T (202) 628-4888 R i
l l l 1015 l 1 watery eyes, gastrointestinal dysfunction, disruption of 2 menstrual cycle, skin rashes and sharp abdominal paine. 73 C)3 We've had'many problems since the accident. We've 4 people with their hair fall out. My family, my son I and my 5 daughter had hair fall c We had skin burns on our faces i 'l 6 and hands. And we had the metallic taste before we even 7 knew there was an accident. All of this stuff has been 8 totally ignored by your Commissioners. 9 Some people have tried, in your agency, to help 10 us, any way they could. But they have not done so publicly. 11 We've had to do Freedom of Information requests, one of 12 which I have here. 13 The problem is, when you want to evaporate this 14 water on us, we have already been overdosed. The people f315 that live near the Island will be the same people that will (-) 16 be exposed. Even though 50 percent of the population has 17 moved 7,way, there are still people remaining, and the humans 18 and the animals and the plants cannot bear this burden. And 19 I hope you can at least read what I have underlined or 20 highlighted in yellow. 21 This -- all of this -- has been presented to the 22 Commissioners. They have ignored it. And I think that you i 23 owe it to the people here, especially after Chernobyl, that i 24 this thing would not be allowed to be done. l 25 I believe, and you may think this is being smart, l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (~') (202) 628-4888 l
f I L 1016 I 1 but I honestly believe that the water should be sent to 2 Washington, D.C. and used for the Rose Garden and the fsU 3 flowerbeds there so that everybody can see mutated flowers. 4 (Applause) i 5 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you, Ms. Osborn. .74/Blac6 (Ms. Osborn tenders documents to the Panel of 7 Judges.) 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Welcome. 9 STATEMENT OF ERIC EPSTEIN 10 MR. EPSTEIN: How you doing, fellows. My name is 11 Eric Epstein, and I reside in Perry County. 12 You know, I can't tell you how many meetings I've 13 testified before, including the NRC Commissioners. And I 14 can't tell you how many Commissioners and political (w)15 representatives and stoic-faced members of the government %) 16 that I have had the experience to meet with over the years. 17 It's almost been ten years. You're talking to folks that 18 have become real veterans on the issue. 19 And I think you have a real opportunity tonight to 20 restore our faith in the system and in democracy, if you 21 listen closely to what the people have to say, because I 22 think one of the tragedies over the ten years is that people 23 have become extremely cynical and don't have any faith in 24 the system -- which includes the NRC. 25 And this is not a hysterical part of the country, iieritage Reporting Corporation {} (202) 628-4888 4
1017 l-It's breadbasket,-mainline Americana, almost Bible Belt, if 2 you will. Before the accident, this community was frg v' 3 overwhelmingly pro-nuclear. 4 At this point, there has been a tremendous 5 transformation. And I'm appealing to you as human beings ~6 and Judges, because, Judge Bloch, you said at-the beginning 7 you are listening as a human being and as a Judge, and I 8 hope you do listen carefully. Because I think one of the 9 tragedies of the accident is that scople no longer have a 10 faith in democracy. 11 As Mary had said earlier, we voted two to one 12 against the restart. Nobody listened. And we wrote 13 letters. We went and we demonstrated. We did what you're 14 supposed to do in a democracy. We lined up the Governor, 15 both our United States Senators, all our Congresspeople, all 16 elected officials. And they were ignored. And we just hope 17 tonight that you don't ignore us, and you do listen. 18 carefully. And I, for one, would give you the benefit of 19 the doubt.- But I think you have a tremendous opportunity 20 here to restore bhe people's faith in democracy and in the 21 system, and I hope you take advantage of it. 22 I have some formal comments. And I don't think 23 they' ll tt ' e more than ten minutes. I hope not. I'll go 24 slow.- 25 I would like to remind you that, in the meetings ^ Heritage Reporting Corporation ("} (202) 628-4888 s-l
1018 1 convened by the TMI Advisory Panel over the last several years, not one member of the community, not one member of 2
- O 3
'the community, not'one community organization, not one 4 political representative, spoke'in favor of evaporation. 5 And these were hearings held over a few years. 6 In addition, the Advisory Panel itself, which is 7 composed of people that are pro-nuclear, and people that are 8 members of the scientific community, voted against 9 evaporation. 10 Yet, despite overwhelming public and political 11 opposition to GPU's plant, the utility went ahead and spent 12 $800,000.00 to purchase, design, fabricate, install, and 13 test an evaporator system while the ASLB hearings are in 14 process. They already did this. They already spent f $800,000.00 to buy an evaporator and test it, and we're in ( y15. .the middle of the hearings. To us, this is puzzling and 16 17 arrogant, to say the least. 18 This not only displays an incredible arrogance 19 towards the public and the adjudicatory process, but 20 presumes the outcome of the hearing will be in GPU's favor. 21' And here is a quote from a GPU newsletter, March 17, 1988, j l 22 and I quote: .3 " Work on the system is being started now with the 2 24 expectation that the NRC approval will be forthcoming and to l 25 minimize the lapse of time in disposing of the water." l Heritage Reporting Corporation {'} (202) 628-4888 i
1019 1 So for them, it's a foregone conclusion. 2 And the utility is, in our opinion, using a common ,s v)3 ( strategy frequently employed by the nuclear industry. This 4 strategy includes expending large investments on 5 . construction, licensing and license amendmenta before the 6 NRC has actually granted approval. The foregone conclusion 7 being that, since the money has already been spent and the 8 construction initiated or completed, the NRC might as well 9 sanction the utility's actions regardless of the financial 10 or health and safety impact on ratepayers and area 11 residents. 12 I seriously hope that you will recognize this 13 strategy and reverse the trend. 14 Now, to get to the evaporation process more < s.15 specifically, I personally feel there are a number of L) 16 reasons to oppose this giant boil-off, including several 17 issues you are intimately familiar with, including the 18 hazardous health effects of tritium on the environment and 19 on human health. 20 In our opinion, there has been an incomplete 21 accounting of tritium and transuranic in the water, of the 22 cumulative impact on area residents who already have been 23 exposed to radiation for 14 years. 24 And when you said at the beginning of the evening 25 if there are new issues to introduce, I would like to Heritage Reporting Corporation (^} (202) 628-4888 v
1020 l' introduce an issue that I know legally you are not supposed 2 tol consider. And that is the impact.of psychological stress ' 3 on' residents. 4 It-has been' documented, and there is little 5 dispute, that this area suffers from a, chronic and elevated-6 level of-psychological stress _since the accident at Three 7 Mile Island. I firmly believe that if you allow this 8-utility to evaporate water, you'll just compound a problem 9 that we deal with on a daily basis. And that is, the 10 specter of radiation exposure. 11 So I think that is an issue you should consider. 12 I know that there is legal precedent that, as far as I know, 13 prevents you from doing so. But that doesn't make the issue 14 .any less real. 15 I also think that you need to consider the adverse 16-economic impact on local businesses and I'think you need to 17 consider the failure of GPU and the NRC to condu.:t a 18 meterological study of the area and the legitimate and 19 widespread distrust of the ut'ility that now exists. 20 In fact, what I'll quickly do is give you a brief l 21-background of this utility, to give you some idea of how we 22 feel about them. I'll just take a minute. 23 Unless you are from this area, I think it's l 24 impossible to fathom what these people have done to our 1 25 community. I think you just cannot fathom, unless you live Heritage Reporting Corporation I /~\\ (202) 628-4888 I (/ l i t..
1021 1 here on a day in and day out basis. 2 Let me give you a brief sketch -- and it won't O 3 keep you -- I'll just highlight some ot the main events that 4 have occurred over the years. 5 1980: They vented 43,000 curies of radioactive l 6 krypton 85 and other radioactive gases from Unit 2, even 7 though TMI was designed to vent only 770 curies a year. The l 8 venting occurred over a year after the accident, despite l 9 widespread fear and concern. 10 The NRC fined GPU $64,000.00 for harassing and l 11 intimidating a senior level engineer who charged, in the 12 Spring of 1983, that GPU and the NRC deliberately 13 circumvented safety procedures. So here was a man who came 14 forth and said look, they're taking shortcuts. What did the 15 utility do? They harassed and intimidated him. 16 July 22, 1983: A $140,000.00 fine was levied by 17 the NRC for material false statements -- which are lies -- 18 made by this utility in connection with the license 19 certification of a TMI-2 supervisor of operations who had 20 cheated on license requalification examination in 1979. 21 July 24 to 27, 1983: In Lancaster, in the City 22 Council chambers in Lancaster, there were pledges from the 23 NRC and GPU that no venting would take place during the 24 polar crane headlift. I was there. The utility and the NRC 25 said, under no conditions will we vent. What did they do? Heritage Reporting Corporation gg (202) 628-4888
1022 1 They vented anyway. -In addition, they were fined $40,000.00 for their - tO. 2 ~ 3 polar crane or.for the brake failure on the polar crane. 4 February 29, 1984: Met. Ed. pleaded guilty to one .5 ' count and no contest to seven counts of an 11-count 6 12,. ment in a leak rate falsification case. We have the 7 luxury of living next to a utility which is a convicted 8 felon. 9 More recently, on December 1, 1987, a Unit-2 Shift 10 Supervisor was fired for sleeping on the job, and on August 11 11 of this year a Unit 2 operator was fired for drinking and 12 taking drugs. 13 There have been all kinds of incidents, too 14 numerous to go over, and I won't recount them, for the sake f-15 of time. But there have been incidences including leaks, L 16 spills, accidental releases, purges, miscalibrations, 17 exposures, fines, even one-celled organisms. 18 So I think what it boils down to in the bottom 19 line is this. And I appeal to you as a human being: Would 20 you allow a company with this type of record'to evaporate 21 radioactive water in your back yard? I hope not. I would 22 hope not. 23 I urge the Board to order GPU to keep the 24 accident generated water on site until a safe method of 25 disposal can be developed. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1023 l' And I would-just like to add before I conclude 2 that we're being tired of being taken for granted, or listed O 3 as some generic dose assassment in the appendix of a 4 government document. We're not a dose assessment. We're 5 not that blank piece of paper that you looked at, you know, 6 when you vent the radioactive water, you know, based on our 7 calculations you'll get, you know, some data that they've 8 dug up somewhere. We're human beings. And I think we 9 deserve more than to have this utility vent radioactive 10 water _directly into our environment. And I hope you, after 11 listening to the evidence and listening to the people 12 tonight, decide not to evaporate the water. 13 I think you have, like I said, a tremendous 14 opportunity to reverse the trend and restore our faith in 15 democracy and in the system. 16 Thank you. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Epstein, if you just wait a 18 moment, I want to say something, and I want you to have a 19 chance to'say the last word. 20 MR. EPSTEIN: Sure. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Because I don't think this is a 22 night for me to say things and not have someone respond. 23 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I know I always like to get 24 the last word in. 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Good. I want to point out something Heritage Reporting Corporation (~T (202) 628-4888 %)
1024 1 about what we can do and what we can't do. ,- 2 Under the law, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, it \\ / 3 is the policy of the United States to license nuclear power 4 plants. And that's a statute. 5 Under the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission, certain things are allowable and certain things 7 are not. That's the way the regulations of the United 8 States Government work. 9 My job and the job of my fellow Judges is to 10 decide things under those regulations. 11 MR. EPSTEIN: I understand. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Now, I'm proud to say that I've 13 never had any interference with my independence as a Judge, 14 and I haven't heard of anyone else on the panel being f315 interfered with as a Judge. We are limited as to what we V 16 can decide. 17 I would also like to say that there are people who 18 are assessing the damage to this area who are also people 19 like yourself. And some of them have opinions that are 20 different from yours. I have to listen to them, also. 21 That's part of being a Judge. ) 22 The other thing I would like to assure you of is 23 that there is absolutely no relevance to whether or not 24 equipment has been purchased by General Public Utilities. 25 That is not relevant and we cannot pay attention to that, Heritage Reporting Corporation /~'T (202) 628-4888 V
1025 1 for or against this proposal. 2 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I have a hard time seeing why k l 3 that's not relevant. I understand under a strict judicial 1 4 procedure why it's not relevant. But you must understand, 5 if you're living in the community and this utility has spent 6 close to a million dollars to buy, to test, to fabricate an ~ 7 evaporator, it gives the appearance that the hearings, that 8 there's been a foregone conclusion or decision made. And I 9 mean, it just doesn't look well. I know it hasn't. But I h 10 mean, it looks -- 11 JUDGE BLOCH: I'm just saying to you that if 12 they'd spent ten million, I wouldn't care. 13 h?. EPSTEIN: That's good. I'm glad to hear that. 14 As far as what you said, according to the Atomic Energy Act 15 of 1954, I agree. And I think if the NRC were true to that 16 mandate, not talking about the ASLB proceedings, you're 17 talking about a utility that's violated that or at least the 18 trust in this community on several occasions, including a 19 convicted felony. 20 Now, I know you probably can't take that into 21 consideration. But that's something we live with on a daily 22 basis. And it's reality. And I think their history should 23 be something that you' re aware of. I mean, if they are 24 criminals and if they have a record, I mean it's something 25 you should be aware of if you allow them to evaporate Heritage Reporting Corporation gg (202) 628-4888
1026 1 radioactive water. 2' JUDGE BLOCH:- Thank you. r ~. 3 MR.'EPSTEIN: Okay. 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you for your participation. 5 MR. EPSTEIN: Good luck tonight. 6 (Applause)
- 75/Blac7 MR. BAXTER
Judge Bloch, excuse me. 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. 9 MR. BAXTER: I just think the record would be ' 10 ' incomplete if it weren't noted that Mr. Epstein is a member 11 and a frequent spokesman for TMIA which is one of the 12 parties to this case. 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 14 (Mr. Epstein replies from the audience:) f s15. MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I mean --
- Q 16 JUDGE BLOCH:
Do you have any -- I assume you're 17 proud.of that?' 18 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, I am proud of it. But I'm a 19 citizen, also. I'm a schoolteacher who works and lives in 20 the. community. That's not a problem for him.
- 21 JUDGE BLOCH
Thank you. 22 Mr. Brandt? Welcome. 23 STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH E. BRANDT, MEMBER, 98TH DISTRICT, 24 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 25 MR. BRANDT: Welcome, gentlemen, to Lancaster Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 } 1
I' 1027 1 County. I take this as an opportunity, gentlemen, to
- 2 reflect on the views of one elected official, that combine 3
with several others in the area of Three Mile Island, on how 4 we folks hear and judge this issue. 5 As a Member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, ~6 I represent the 98th District which comprises Northwestern 7. Lancaster County. All the district which I represent lies 8 within the 10 to 15 mile radius of TMI. I have represented 9 this district continuously since 1972. 10 In fact, where I reside, with my wife, Jean, and 11 our five children -- now they're married and we're getting 12 into grandkids -- is in fact, the residence we live in is in 13 fact within two miles of Unit 2. .14 I support the company proposal to evaporate the 15 water. It is my understanding from prior testimony that has 16 been presented before you that the average exposure to a 17 person from this water evaporation process would be the same 18 as the exposure received from 1 to 2 hours of natural 19 background-radiation. 20 I have come to the conclusion, and am satisfied, 21 this evaporation process will have no adverse effect on the. 1 22 ' environment. I also understand, from prior information l l 23 received,,that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 24 examined this issue and concluded that water evaporation is l 25 an acceptable disposal plan. l i Heritage Reporting Corporation l {} (202) 628-4888 l
j: 1028 L 1 By safely disposing of the slightly contaminated 2 water from TMI-2, General Public Utilities is taking a major -3b 3 step in completing the cleanup on this unit. 4 I have discussed this issue with many local 5 residents and also other local elected officials from the i 6 communities I represent. And the alternative of water l 7 evaporation makes the most sense to these individuals. 8 By the way, I have with me, in that packet, nine 9 letters from other local elected officials supporting my 10 testimony before you this evening. 11 The other alternative, of storing the water on 12 -TMI, only delays the actual disposal of this slightly 13 contaminated water and .rtainly is not in the best 14 interests of local residents that I and others represent. 15 We must keep the total cleanup of TMI-2 moving forward. 16 Personally, as a resident living within two miles 17 of the Island and as a Member of the General Assembly 18 representing that Northwestern Lancaster County area, I have 19 come to the conclusion that we should support the water 20 evaporation method to dispose of the slightly contaminated 21' water. 22' I urge you, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 23 to take the steps necessary to have this process approved 24 for the safe disposal of this water. 25 Thank you for your time. I would like to, if I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )
1029 1 1: could, read into the r'ecord the names and the municipalities 2? individuals represent. I will not read their letters, but .O 3 it becomes part of the testimony. And I may highlight a'few 4 'of them, sir. 5 Conoy Township, the township I live in, a letter 6 signed from Robert Strickland who is the Secretary-Treasurer 7 of that group. And I'd like to say what Bob says as a 8 Supervisor in Conoy Township, which, by the way, is the 9 closest, is the closest municipality to the Island: I also 10 support the water evaporation plan. 11 From Elizabethtown Borough, the borough that is 12 six miles due South-Southeast from the Island, Meade Bierly, 13 Vice President of the Borough Council: As the Vice 14 President of Elizabethtown Borough Council, I support this 15 water evaporation process. 16 More importantly, local residents are concerned to 17 see'the cleanup c,mpleted. 18 From the Borough of Columbia, a borough in fact 19 that takes its water out of the Susquehanna for its drinking 20 purposes, a letter signed by Paul Myers, President of the 21 Columbia Borough Council. 22 East Donegal Township. Borders on the Susquehanna 23 River. Signed by Barbara Stoner, who is an elected official 24 of that body and serves as the Secretary-Treasurer. Barbara 25-also says to me: I would like to request that you also Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l-I- f 1030 1 convey my support of this proposal to the Board. And I 2 would definitely want the release monitored. l 3 And I think that's a part of it. I want to make '4 sure that in the plan that this release will be monitored, 5 whatever release it may be.. 6 West Hempfield Township, Joe Heley, Chairman of 7 the Board of Supervisors, also says that as a local elected 8 official he supports this proposal. 9 West Donegal Township, within the five-mile radius 10 of Three Mile Island. Jack Lawson, elected Supervisor of 11 that group. And Jack says: Working at the grassroots level 12 of government, we hear firsthand the concerns local 13 residents have. Water evaporation is simply not a big issue 14 in our community. Most people want to see the cleanup 15 completed. Jack Lawson, West Donegal Township. 16 Borough of Mount Joy, signed by Charlie Ricedorf, 17 East Ward Councilman, continues with basically the same, 18 tell me that: Therefore, I believe the water should be 19 disposed of in a safe manner that will assure the citizens 20 of the area that their safety, welfare and health are not 21 being jeopardized. 22 Borough of Marietta, another borough, borders on 23 the Susquehanna, gets its drinking water out of the 24 Susquehanna. Signed by Oliver Overlander, Oliver l 25 Overlander, Mayor of the Borough of Marietta. And he says Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1031 1 that they support this process and hope that you would move 2 further. 3 / t '3 And Mount Joy Township. Here's a township that 4 has its own environmental problems. It bid, Mount Joy 5 Township bid for the incinerator for Lancaster County. 6 But I'm telling you that these folks, Dean 7 Steinhart, in his profession he's an educator, Rodney Fink 8 and Harold Musser, two businessmen in the township -- same 9 thing. They tell me, and I've talked to each one of these 10 individually as we put these comments together -- all these 11 elected officials, representing people as I do -- believe 12 that we have to move forward with this process and get this 13 moving in the direction, and it's more important that we 14 have this water problem solved now than to continue a 15 monitoring and concern of what would happen with this 16 process in years to come. 17 Thank you for your time. Certainly, if you have 18 any questions or comments, I'd be happy to answer. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you, Mr. Brandt. 20 MR. BRANDT: Well, I hope you have a good stay in 21 Lancaster County and make sure that you taste some of our 22 Dutch foods. 76/Bla23 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Wickstrom, I' d like to 1 24 apologize. We changed our policy. You didn't have to send 25 us a statement. l Heritage Reporting Corporation f~T (202) 628-4888 \\_) t
1032 1 STATEMENT OF BETTY WICKSTROM 2 MS. WICKSTROM: Right. I had. applied to make an O 3 oral statement way back'in January, and then just a very few 4' . days before this meeting I received a letter from the 5 volunteer SVA lawyer which I interpreted to say that I must 6 get a written statement in to be considered to speak orally. 7 So I hurried to do that, and so my statement will be as I 8 wrote it. But I would like permission at the end if there ~ _9 is time to just include a little addendum which I wrote 10 today. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Certainly. 12 MS. WICKSTROM: First of all, I wish to commend 13 you for holding these hearings, believing it important for 14 there to be citizen participation in the decisions which 15 affect their lives very directly. 0 16 Just prior.to the accident at TMI-2 in March of 17 1979 I had completed.a rather extensive study of nuclear 18 energy as one source of electric power generation.' During 19 that study, I came to realize that the all-pervasive risk 20. factor in this form of energy production is. radioactivity. i 1 21 At all stages of the process of producing the J 22 fissionable products, from the mining, milling, processing 23 and transport on through the heating and cooling of the 24 water in the reactor vessel system and the subsequent 25 storage of the spent fuel rods in pools at the plant site, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 } f
l I l l 1033 1 radioactive emissions are present, to varying degrees. g-) 2 In the study I did, both the economics of various %) 3 forms of energy and the risk to health and safety, were 4 considered. While there is some factor in all forms of 5 energy, one way of quantifying those which are acceptable is 6 whether the consequences of assuming a particular risk are 7 irreversible. 8 In the case of nuclear power, William Lawrence of 9 Harvard University has written, and I quote: 10 "For the general public, the risks are 11 inescapable, once these expensive plants are in operation. 12 What the risks really are is quite controversial. The risks 13 will be both to those who work in the plants and to the 14 general public. Effects will be both immediate, in the - 15 event of a catastrophic accident, and delayed, with any s-16 radiation exposure. Both the radiation hazard and the 17 un1 :_ely but horrible explosion hazards, carry overtones of 18 dread." Unquote. 19 The accident at TMI has had a profound effect, 20 nationally and internationally, on the whole question of 21 nuclear power, not only on numerous economic aspects but on 22 the adequacy of the protection of public health and safety 23 by all concerned -- the NRC, plant operators and owners, and 24 government authorities. 25 But it is this area's people and environment that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (' 3/
- _ _ = _ _ _ _. i 1034 1 continue to be the most affected oy the. accident and its 1 2 aftermath. There were radioactive. releases during the 3 accident, during the cooldown period and in the continuing 4 cleanup, particularly of iodine 129 and krypton, 5' There_was, and is, also psychological stress at i 6 the' time of the accident and continuing to the present time, 7 particularly among those highly aware of the experimental I 8 nature of the difficult step by step invention of 9 methodology, techniques and tools in the cleanup. 10 The overriding concern has been that of the 11 biological effects of radiation. Scientists, using 12 primarily the linear, non-threshold hypothesis, have 13 disagreed and debated about the dose rate in relation to 14 cancer. 15 That radiation can cause cancer and mutation as 16 well as death, in high enough doses, is not questioned. 17 What is questioned is the relationship between the dose, 18 particularly doses below 1 rom, and the number of cancers. 19 The controversy is over whether the hypothesis overestimates 20 or underestimates the carcinogenic risks of low-level 21 radiation exposure. 22 This scientific uncertainty becomes very important 23 in the consideration of whether to release radioactive 24 tritium into the environment and upon a populace already 25 exposed to some degree to radioactive elements. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1035 1 For both types of damage, cancer and mutation, the g-latency period is long: 25 to 30 years for cancer and a 2 3 generation or more for genetic damage. It cannot be known 4 for a long time what damage may have been incurred here, and 5 very likely will never be known, as no epidemiological 6 studies are being conducted on area residents. 7 Because the effects of. additional release of 8 radiation are unknown, and because the amount of tritium in 9 'the water is unsure, and because the exact technique to be ) 10 used in the evaporation process re keeping the damaged 11 reactor simultaneously water covered so it can't go critical 12 while evaporating the water, I believe that the option of 13 storing the water on the Island is a better option than 14 evaporation. 15 I understand that the two large tanks especially 16 constructed after the accident to hold the contaminated 17 water are designed to withstand all manner of accidents for 18 a 30 year period. At the end of that period, the tritium 19 will have decayed to the point where it is no longer a 20 threat. Though neither option is without risk, I believe
- 21 this one of storage on Three Mile Island, essentially a no-22 action alternative, is preferable, as evaporation entails a 23 risk with irreversible consequences to the public and the 24 environment.
25 And then, my addendum that I wrote today, is that I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 {)
l 1036 1 'I wish to add that during the afternoon session of the g f-) 2 hearings yesterday, I realized more fully why the Intervenor \\m/ 3 has been given a chance to present more material evidence on-4 grounds there are uncertainties about the evaporation 5 process versus the onsite storage, or no-action option. 6 Evidently, the number, capacity and storage 1 7 capability of any tanks now in existence -- I got the idea 8 there aren't two big ones built right after the accident 9 like I had written -- that any now in existence, or which 10 will be needed -- they also talked of one being needed -- is 11 in doubt by all concerned. 12 Also, the very term, as well as full implications 13 of the no-action option, seem to be in doubt. 14 Perhaps there has never been a serious 15 consideration of this option. Instead, GPU has long since 16 purchased an $800,000.00 evaporator in anticipation of being 17 allowed to use it. 18 At the beginning of my written statement, I 19 commended the Judges for holding these hearings. But I also 20 want to commend even more Frances Skolnik, who against.all 21 the odds of a government committed to nuclear power from its 22 inception, and with a powerful industry as ally, represents 23 a tremendous courage and personal sacrifice of individual 24 citizens and citizens' groups who have tried to speak out 25 for the highest priority to be the public and environmental Heritage Reporting Corporation {) (202) 628-4888
=_____- 1037 1 ' concernsEversus economic and policy concerns. 4-5 2 'I salute you, and thank you, Frances. X ~ ). 3 (Applause)' 4. MS. WICKSTROM: Thank you. J5 - JUDGE'BLOCH: I'd like to check on the people who 6 had filed who were not here before. 7 Doris Robb. You may speak now. 8 STATEMENT OF DORIS ROBB 9 MS. ROBB: I would just like to mention that the 10-Citizens' Advisory Panel members include Fred Ricedorf and 11 County Commissioner, who voted against evaporation; 12 Elizabeth Marshall,.former Mayor of York, who voted'against. '13 evaporation;.and also mention the fact that Brad Fisher, 14 ,Lancaster County Commissioner has made public statements 15 against evaporation. 16 I've watched with interest the way this 17 distinguished panel:has been able to limit its focus -18 exclusively to the subject of evaporation of the accident-19 generated water from TMI. No other subjects are allowed to 20 be considered. And I understand and appreciate that fact. 21 Unfortunately, we who live in the Susquehanna 22 Valley cannot afford the luxury of such tunnel vision. We 23 do not live in a tunnel. For nine and a half year's we've 24 been exposed to the releases from TMI, both planned, such as 25 the krypton venting, and accidental, into the atmosphere, Heritage Reporting Corporation (} (202) 628-4888
1038 1 the air we breathe, and into the Susquehanna River, the I 2 source of the drinking water for Lancaster County, i -s 7 l 3 Each release has been viewed in isolation. All 4 have been assumed to be within acceptable limits according 5 to the company. Is it any wonder that the public regards I 6 GPU's assumption that the release of radiation to the public j .q 7 from the water to be evaporated will again be within 8-acceptable limits with, we view that with great skepticism? 9 GPU's record has not been one that inspires trust. 10 The incidents of operator cheating on exams that qualify 11 them to operate TMI were well-documented. The NRC has a 12 list of leak rate falsifications, faulty equipment, and 13 misread calibrations. 14 The public does not trust, GPU not because of any r 15 strong anti-nuclear feelings in this area, but because GPU (3/ 16 has proven by its own record to be untrustworthy. 17 We are told that nothing got out at the time of I 18 the-initial accident, therefore no one was harmed by the 19 accident. We know that this is not true. The increase in 20 birth defects and cancers are obvious to those of us who
- 21 live here.
22 There has been more effort given to discredit and l cover up the few studies which have been done than to find 23 1 24 out the facts. l ) 25 The Columbia Study, for example, has been L Heritage Reporting Corporation {~} (202) 628-4888 l
1039 l' completed for over a year, but the results have not been 2 released. 3 The Aamodt Survey disclosed shockingly high 4 incidents of cancer in the small area that was surveyed -5 adjacent to TMI. 6 But no state or Federal agency will do an 7 objective study in this area. 8 In view of the past record of this company, is it 9 not better to err in favor of public health and safety than 1 10-on behalf of the company? 11 Thank you. 12 . JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 13 (Applause) 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Kathleen Prendergast? ( 15 (No response) 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Still not here? 17 Is Mr. William Henderson or Mr. Harry Kremulmeyer 18 here? 19 (No response) 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Steve Snell? 21 (No response) 22 JUDGE BLOCH: There are three matters for written
- 23 filing by people who are not present.
24 One is by David J. Messner who lives in j 25 Harrisburg. He says: Heritage Reporting Corporation (} (202) 628-4888
W L 1040 1 As a resident of Central Pennsylvania for the last 2 20 years I am providing you with a statement in support of 3 GPU Nuclear Corporation's proposal to evaporate 4 approximately 2.3 million gallons of slightly contaminated 5 water. I believe that a large majority of area residents 6 agree with me. I support evaporation because it poses no 7 threat to the environment and I am satisfied with the 8 company's explanation that over the one to two years it will 9 take to evaporate the water, the average exposure to the 10 public will be about the same as two hours' exposure t o 11 sunlight. I support evaporation because this process meets 12 all regulatory requirements. The Nuclear Regulatory 13 Commission Staff examined several disposal methods and has 14 concluded that water evaporation is an acceptable disposal 15 plan. 16 We want to put the TMI-2 accident and cleanup 17 behind us. Disposing of the TMI-2 water represents a 18 sensible step in that direction. Storing the water on the 19 Island does not. 20 There is a large amount of scientific and medical 21 knowledge concerning the health effects of low-level 22 radiation. The exposure from the proposed evaporation is 23 minuscule. Many of those who argue otherwise seem to be -24 trying to arouse public anxiety with claims that have on 25 merit except to advance their personal political objectives. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 {)
1041 1 While that is permitted in a free society, it is not an (~ 2 appropriate basis for rational regulatory decision-making. %_)) 3 Please consider my support when making your decision. 4 I have a letter also from Robert S.
- Walker, 5
Congress of the United States: 6 Although I cannot be present -- I'm sorry. I 1 7 don't like disrespect shown to any individual, regardless of 8 what their views are. 9 Although I cannot be present at the Atomic Safety 10 and Licensing Board's November 3rd public hearing on the 11 disposal of the contaminated water on Three Mile Island, I 12 wish to take the opportunity to submit a written statement 13 for the record. 1( It is my opinion that the cleanup of Three Mile i N ]15 Island Unit 2 should be completed as safely and as rN 16 expeditiously as possible. Because of the proximity of 17 Three Mile Island to the 16th Congressional District and as 18 a result of my membership on the House Science, Space and 19 Technology Committee, I have closely followed the cleanup l 20 process. 21 An integral part of the remaining cleanup effort 22 is the disposal of the contaminated water. My constituents 23 have indicated that they do not regard dumping the water l 24 into the Susquehanna River as an acceptable solution, and I 25 agree. Heritage Reporting Corporation (') (202) 628-4888 v
1042 1 Furthermore, the cleanup cannot be considered 2 completed until the water is removed from the Island. 3 Therefore, I do not support storing the water on the Island. 4 As you know, the June 1987 Supplement to the 5 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the 6 environmental consequences of ten disposal alternatives, 7 including evaporation, and concluded that the implementation 8 of any of the alternatives would not result in a significant 9 impact. 10 I therefore support use of evaporation and I urge i 11 the Board to lift the prohibition on the disposal of the 12 contaminated water so that the cleanup can proceed using 13 this method. I appreciate your inclusion of this statement 14 in the official record of the Board's proceedings. What I would like to do now is to invite )15 16 additional participation. And I think that we could do 17 that, given that there's a limited number of people willing 18 to do that, by just allowing people to decide when it's 19 their turn to share, and coming forward to use the 20 microphone. Just notice whether someone else has already 21 gotten up, and when you feel it's your turn, come on up. I 22 won't even arbitrate who goes next. 23 (A remark from the audience.) 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. Elizabeth Chavey did speak to 25 me and yes, she had not submitted anything in writing, but I Heritage Reporting Corporation () (202) 628-4888 _. - _ - _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _
1043 1 she could be next. That's correct. Thank you. 2 Ms. Chavey. 3 Before you do that, Ms. Chavey, we also have a 4 matter of wanting to receive a statement by Karl Morgan, 5 that was agreed this afternoon during the hearings. Do we 6 have the statement for the record? 7 Also, if you'd like, Ms. Skolnik, you could read 8 portions of it, up to ten minutes. Why don't we have Ms. 9 Chavey come first and than we'll handle Mr. Morgan's 10 statement? 11 STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH M. CHAVEY 12 MS. CHAVEY: My name is Elizabeth Chsvey. And I 13 am a member of the Concerned Mothers from Middletown. 14 Each time I come here, I despise having to bare my 15 heart and soul about t.he feelings I have about TMI and GPU. 16 I believe that this meeting ic.actually a total facade. We 17 are the victims who live here, and would have actually a 18 better chance for honesty and a fair play in Russia than we 19 have with GPU and the NRC. 20 My distrust of both is so great that now I 21 distrust everything. 22. We believe that the cards are stacked against us 23 in this meeting and we are given this time only as a show, 24 that we are being heard, and that is all. 25 The evaporation system has been bought and in Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (~T (202) 628-4888 V A
i 1044 1 place and ready to go. GPU has said that it is three times f-) 2 less costly than the safer method. X._./ 3 How costly? They are measuring in dollars and 4 cents. And we are measuring in lives, and the safety of our 5 people. The people who have arranged this infamous 6 arrangement of evaporation decision will pack their bags and 7 leave this area to go to a safer place where their wives and 8 children will not be involved. But we will have to live 9 with the evaporation of radioactive tritium for three years 10 or more, possibly, into our environment which God gave us 11 all to breathe, and not for GPU to destroy. 12 But we want you to know that we will fight you 13 every inch of the way. And I think the third speaker here had a problem 14 15 with understanding the problem that exists. Doesn't he know 16 that the TMI cleanup will never be complete, as they have no 17 plans to complete the cleanup. They have neither the 18 knowhow nor the equipment to do so. 19 He said slightly contaminated water would be 20 evaporated? Slightly contaminated water is water that a 21 child might have washed his hands with after play in the 22 sandbox. This is radioactive contaminated water. And I 23 certainly hope that you will bear in mind that this thing 24 has destroyed so many lives. 25 (Applause) l l I l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 {} 1 1
1045 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you, Ms. Chavey. f3 2 Ms. Skolnik. '% ) !.77/Blac3 STATEMENT'OF KARL Z. MORGAN, Presented by FRANCES SKOLNIK 4 MS. SKOLNIK: I'm not going to read all of the 5 statement, because there are a lot of numbers in there. 6 This is Dr. Karl-Morgan's Third Set of Comments Relative to 7 Treatment and Disposal of 2.1 Million Gallons of 8 Contaminated Water at TMI-2: 9 His first point is that the Licensee is not 10 capable of evaporating the TMI-2 contaminated water in a 11 safe manner, because the amount of contaminated water is 12 unknown and is likely to exceed 2.1 million gallons. 13 The quantity of-tritium, the principal 14-radionuclides in terms of activity to be released to the 15 environment, is unknown and given erroneously. 16 The quantity of other radionuclides in the 17 processed water -- just before evaporation -- has not been 18. determined with sufficient accuracy. 19 Both the Licensee and the NRC have left a record 20 that cast doubt on their sincerity when they state they give
- 21 high priority to safety and conformance to ALARA.
22 The Licensee does not propose the use of the most 23 recently developed and recommended instrumentation and 24 environmental monitoring procedures in order to comply with 25 the standard as low as reasonably achievable. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation {} (202) 628-4888
1046 1 And Dr. Morgan goes on to cite a study which was 2 funded by the Public Health Fund, which was $5 million that 3 was set aside as a result of the TMI accident. And Dr. 4 Patrick and her associates were asked to study a monitoring 5 system around any nuclear power plant and specifically 6 around TMI. That study was just released I think last year. 7 The GPU Nuclear staff and the NRC do not make it 8 clear which waste water will be treated or if any 9 retreatment is now planned. 10 There are many sources of contaminated water 11 evolving from the TMI-2 cleanup. Because of uncertainties 12 and risk of mistakes, I believe these water sources -- other 13 than the sanitary sewer -- should not be separated and 14 treated differently -- they should all be treated by the SDS and EPICOR-2 system; each of course with the necessary O,eg 15 16 preparatory treatment. 17 The NRC Staff demonstrates a warped or seriously 18 distorted understanding of the risks from the transuranic 19 radionuclides. l 20 NRC Staff would console us about their lack of 21 serious consideration of the transuranic in the accident-l 22 generated water because on a curie or activity basis they 23 comprise less than 1 percent. To me this is absurd. l l 24 Essentially all the curies in Table 2.2 of the EIS consist 25 of tritium. However, the relative cancer risk of plutonium i i Heritage Reporting Corporation (~j) (202) 628-4888 n I
/ \\ 1047 1. 239 to thatoof tritium'as given' by the ratio -- I shouldn't /~T 2 have got'into this -- as given by.the ratio of the inverses 1( / .l 3 of the maximum permissible concentration for air'for.the two j .a. i 4 radionuclides is 5 times 10 to the minus 6 over 2 times 10 -5 .to the minus 12. That is equal to two and a half million. 6 The Licensee and NRC appear not to.be giving -7 serious consideration to the modifications I have suggested El to the evaporation method. ] 9 .The Environmental Impact Statement fails to comply 10 with the requirements of.the National Environmental Policy i 11 Act. 12; There has not been provided convincing evidence 13 that the evaporation method as proposed will provide en 14 overall decontamination factor of 1,000. )15 Problems associated with liquid transfer, l 16 spillage, accidents, shutdown, equipment failure, sabotage, 17' explosion, reduced efficiency, et cetera, have not been 18 .given thorough consideration. 19 JUDGE BLOCH: You are permitted to read any of it 20 now. There's no rules at all. 21 MS. SKOLNIK: Oh, I know. I just -- I'm trying .22 not to read the parts that get into a lot of numerals. 23 ~ Plus'I'm also being kind. 24 It is unrealistic to assume that carbon 14, iodine i 25 129 and cesium 137 will be removed completely by the Heritage Reporting Corporation .(} (202) 628-4888
t7 1048 11 . proposed evaporation system. This must be proven by ~ 2 experiments which.have never been done and one must not rely J7 13 on theory.. 4 Neither the Licensee nor the NRC seem to know what 5 ~the natural background radiation is in the local area. '6 ~ The Licensee and the NRC have consistently ~ 7. underestimated both the occupational-and public radiation 8' dose and risk of radiation induced malignancies and of 9' genetic defects. ' 10 Then Dr. Morgan gives his.present opinion E11 regarding disposal of contaminated water at TMI-2: 12 Because of the above facts and other facts, I have 13' . concluded th'at allsplans for the evaporation procedure 14 should be abandoned. I believe, as indicted above,-that all 15 the contaminated water should be treated by the SDS and 16 EPICOR-2 Systems following appropriate retreatment. The 17 solid or slurry residue from these treatments should be 18 sized, mixed with cement in 55-gallon drums and sent to a 19 licensed burial ground, for example Hanford. The -20 contaminated water should be placed temporarily in large '21 holding tanks. Other pretreatments, ion exchange chemical 22 steps and better systems that are effective in removing 23 stable boron and more of the radionuclides should be 24 investigated and applied where feasible. '25 The holding tanks should be so installed and Heritage Reporting Corporation {} (202) 628-4888 E
1049 1 located that any leakage is known with absolute certainty to l {}2 drain into a sampling sump tank. Great care must be taken 3 to prevent any explosive materials entering the tanks via 4 sabotage or otherwise. Under no conditions should cement, 5 solidifying or coagulating materials be placed in these 6 tanks. It is likely plans will be undertaken to remove this 7 contaminated water at a later date and we do not wish to be 8 confronted then with problems such as those that stalled and j 9 daunted operations at West Valley. 10 Recommended Future Course of Action. Ultimately, l l 11 it will be desirable to drain the tanks of the 2.1 million 12 gallons, plus gallons, of contaminated water. Most of the in curies -- in the tanks will be that of 13 activity 1 l 14 tritium. Various estimates of the tritium activity are ( } 15 provided us but if the initial level is 1,000 curies, the 16 dropoff in time of tritium, cesium 137, strontium 90 and 17 plutonium 239 will be as follows. 18 (Whereupon, Ms. Skolnik held up a page of Dr. 19 Morgan's statement to audience.) 20 JUDGE BLOCH: Ms. Skolnik just showed a table to 21 the audience. 22 MS. SKOLNIK (Presenting Dr. Morgan's Statement) : 23 Many factors and circumstances will determine how long the 24 contaminated water should remain in the tanks. It would 25 seem to me, however, 30 years might be reasonable. With Heritage Reporting Corporation () (202) 628-4888
1050 1 proper adjustment of the pH, the tanks should not leak in i i r-2 this time while the activity of tritium will have dropped to (3/ 3 18.4 percent and that of cesium 137 and strontium 90 to 4 about 50 percent. If over this time a 5,000 gallon tank 5 gave indication of leakage, its contents could be mixed with 6 concrete as it is emptied into about 100 55-gallon drums and 7 then shipped to a state-operated medium-level repository. 8 Concluding Comment: I appreciate very much the 9 value of having an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, ASLB, 10 and for several years I served on a Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission committee to recommend memberships on these l 12 ASLB's. For the most part I believe membert of these Boards 13 strive to be impartial but in many cases they have conflict 14 of interest, and I believe the selection process should be (") 15 modified to minimize this conflict. It would seem that %) 16 membership on these Boards should reflect as equally as 17 possible the views and goals of the public living near the 18 nuclear power plant as well as views of the nuclear utility. 19 I am not convinced that this is always the case. 20 On another point, I believe the method of 21 financing the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings l 22 should be improved. Members of ASLB and their consultants 23 and the NRC Staff are paid by the NRC and there should be 24 some arrangement by which members of the public and their 25 organizations that contest plans of the utility that affect Heritage Reporting Corporation {~ } (202) 628-4888 1
e 1051 1 them can be paid a fee and have coverage of their expenses. j-} Some years ago -- just a few days before I had to rush home 2' 3 to testify before Senator Kennedy in a Congressional hearing 4 regarding consequences of the TMI-2 accident -- I testified 5 in the Gorlieben Hearings against a proposed method of the 6 West Germans to dispose of radioactive waste in dome salt. 7 It was my impression that both sides of this controversy { 8 were financed by the West German Government. Why can't we l l '9 in the United States be as democratic as the West Germans? 10 Because I know we have no such system in the i 11 United States and some members and organizations of the 12 local community are striving so nobly for their 13 Constitutional rights, I have not asked to be paid and will 14 not request payment for many days I have spent in )15 preparation for these hearings; this in spite of the fact my 16 sole business and livelihood is that of consulting in health 17 physics and defending in our courts plaintiffs who have 18 evidence of injury from excessive exposure to ionizing 19 radiation. 20 This is not a criticism of the present ASLB, but a 21 plea that the NRC will try to make this process more 22 democratic and fair to the heroic members of the public that ) 23 try to make this democratic process a useful and successful 24 operation even though most of those in this community and in 25 other communities where I have intervened relative to I i 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation [} (202) 628-4888
I.. h L 1052 'l nuclear utility proposals believe'there'i's much room for 2-improvement of this process. 3 Thank you. l 4 JUDGE BLOCH: 'Thank you. And that may be bound 5 in, soLif you would like to take that. L 6-(The " Third Set of Comments 7 Relative to Treatment and- -8 Disposal of 2,100,000 Gal. of 'o 9 Contaminated Water at TMI-2"' 10 by Karl Z. Morgan, September 11 30, 1988 is inserted into the l 12 record and follows:) 13 14 () 16 17 18 19 20-21 '22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation J j (202) 628-4888 I )
1 g-1o53 Third Set of Comments Relative to Treatment ( and Disposal of 2,100$00 Gal of Contaminated Water O at TMi-2 by Karl Z. Morgan September 30,1988 A. Historical-Factors Leading to Conclusion That the Licensee Is Not ) v Capable of Evaporating the TMI-2 Contaminated Water in a Safe Manner
- 1. The Amount of Contaminated Water is Unknown and is Likely to 6
Exceed 2.1x10 gal, 6
- a. Peports have given the amount of this water as 2.1 x 10,
6 6 2.2 x 10 and 2.3 x 10 gal.
- b. From my own experience in cleanup operations in Oak Ridge,
( Tenn. I have found the contaminated water almost always exceeds the estimates in spite of efforts to keep it to a O' minimum. y
- 2. The Quantity of H-3, the Principal Radionuclides in Terms of Activity (p Cis) to Be Released to the Envlornment, is Unknown and Given Erroneously.
- a. The following values are given.07,0.13,0.19 and 2.14 CI/ mil This is a range of 30 in the amount of H-3 and in the associated dose to members of the public.
I recognize that it is difficult to make an accurate y ( theoretical estjmate of the H-3 present from the MW-hrs.,p I the B in the rea'c' tor asia function of time and from M I i ( information on other stable elements in the primary and p secondary water systems but proper sampling techniques x) certainly should reduce the uncertainty to less than a few
1 1054 2 f percent and not 3,00081 p i recognize that although H-3 in the PWR is produced 235 (fission)3 + other f p's,10 +N+ principally by the U H B 8Be+3 +0.2MeV, I I +N+9Be+3 +9.6 MeV,10 +N+2,Lt 3H H B H B 10 +N 4 L1+N+3H, there are many other reactions 7 and B contributing to H-3 production such as H+N+3H, I 4 +N+ 2 N 12 +3, I +N.+2 (2 +N+3 ),6 +N+L+3 +4.69MeV. It is C H H H H H Ll H for this reason I always give more credulence to properly conducted sampling rather than to theoretical estimates. Why such poor sampling? x
- 3. The Quantity of Other Radionuclides in the Processed Water (Just Before Evaporation) Has Not Been Determined with
( Sufficient Accuracy. For Example Sb-125 is given as 6,2x10-7 and <l.1x10-7 'J pCi/ml, Cs-137 as 800x10-8 and 7.6x10-0 p Ci/ml, Co-60 as 32x10-8 and 8.4x10-0 4 C1/m1, Pu239/240 as<3.7x10-0 and < l,2x 10-0 p C1/m1, C-14 as 3000x10-7 and 2,3x10-7 4 C1/ml, Tc-99 as 25,0x10-8 and 1.6x10-8 Ci/ml. I consider these uncertainties as serious. Cs-137 and Co-60 are among the more important gamma emitters (external dose) in the evaprator bottoms and the residuals of the SDS and EPICOR-Il processing before the evaporation so a difference of the Cs-137 dose by a factor of > 100 and of the Co-60 dose by a factor of 4 is of great p consequence in t'erms of, occupational exposure and exposure during transportation op rations. The Pu risks will be'aroundior ( e ( hundreds of thousands of years and so a difference by a factor of 3 is very significant. The C-14 is considered by some experts as a principal environment hazard of nuclear power operations yet
1055 - p 3 i the estimates of C-14 differ by a factor of 1300! As one of the scientists who has tried to make nuclear energy and its product nuclear power acceptably safe during the past 45 years, I feel a bit insulted by any organization that suggests uncertainties of the occupational and environmental radiation hazards of the above magnitude should be acceptable.
- 4. Both the Licensee and the NRC Have Lef t a Record That Cast Doubt on Their Sincerity when They State They Give High Priority to Safety and Conformance to ALARA.
The public record of the licensee is well established and need not be elaborated here. The atitude of the NRC and its senior staff toward radiation safety is exempilfied in a letter I wrote to the chairman of NRC (see Appendix A) which, by the way, was never answered. To me O it is incredible that an organization such as the NRC claims its policy is te conform with ALARA while at the same time it blindly accepts recommendations of ICRP to increase levels of maximum permisc!hle air concentration (MPC)a of radionuclides such as H-3 by a factor of 4.4,20 for C-14,1.5 for Co-60,1.4 for 7 1.7x10 y 1-129,2.1 for I-1315.4 for Cs-137,2.7 for Pu-239, etc and increases values in water (MPC)w such as H-3 by a f actor of 3,2.0 for Co-60,2.0 for 1-129,1.7 for l-131,2.0 for Pu-239, etc. (see Appendix B, Table 3) { Also, I consider I(1ncongruous that the NRC like the ICRP, has{ + E not lowered the lev $,1!of majxumum permissible exposureNo I ( external sources of ionizing radiation, MPE by at least a factor of n
- 3. The present MPE and values recommended in BEIR-Ill are based G
on the risk of radiation induced cancer as determined by studies
'r 1056 4 of survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ( (] Those doing these studies have recently published papers showing this risk is greater at least by a factor of 3 than previously published values. The British have lowered their MPE by a factor of 3 (see Appendix C) with indications additional reductions may follow. Why is the NRC stalling? The table below gives values of radiation induced cancer. Comparative Values of Cancer Risk Source Cancers / Person. rem by: Absolute Model Relative Model BEIR-1972 1.15x10-4 5.68x 10-4 UNSCEAR-1977 (0.75-1.75)x 10-4 ICRP-1977 ( 1.0- 1.25)x 10-4 NRC-1981 1.35x10-4 5.4x10-4 I Recent Japan (4-8)x 10-4 (1.6-3.2)x 10-3 Studies-1988 < 5. The Licensee Does Not Propose the Use of the Most Recently Developed and Recommended Instrumentation and Environmental i Monitoring Procedures in Order to Comply with ALARA. A number of improvements in instrumentation, techniques and operating procedures are recommended in the Environmental Monitoring Report prepared by Dr. Ruth Patrick of the Philadelphia i Academy of Natural Sciences, Prof. John Palms, Vice Pres. of h i Emory dniversffy, et a) for the TMI Public Health Fuhd. Espqcially f' 4~ pertinerit'are s$be of sections in Appendix Fbf thislTMI-PHI ( report (See Appendix D). It is unthinkable that the NRC has not Q considered monitoring of wells and springs. The reader is referred also to a paper by Prof. John M. Palms. I
1057 ^ S l
- 6. The GPU Staff and the NRC Do Not Make it Clear Which
.( l Waste Water Will Be Treated or if Any Retreatment is Now Planned. There are many sources of contaminated water evolving from the TMI-2 cleanup. Because of uncertainties and risk of mistakes, I believe these water sources (other than the sanitary sewer) I should not be separated and treated differently - they should all be treated by.the SDS and EPICOR-Il system; each of course with the necessary preparatory treatment. In some responses it is Stated the water will be treated by both the SDS and EPICOR-il systems (e.g. NRC Staff Response dated Feb. 22,1988, page 4) In other responses, however just the contrary is stated (e.g GPU ID 0068P, Feb. 3,1987, page 1). What are we l 3 to believe? I believe the problem of uncertainty in concentration of the various radionuclides is not with the analysees in most cases but with the extremely poor and definately unacceptalbe method employed by the licensee in providing representative water samples.
- 7. The NRC Staff Demonstrates a Warped or Seriously Distorted Understanding of the Risk from the Transuranic Radionuclides.
Page 7 of the NRC Staff Response to interrogatories from TMI7SVA of Feb. 22,1988 states,"However from the ? [f resuits of trie analysis of PWST-2 (see responssf2 above) s at $~ Y-A ~ g ( transuranic make up less than 1% of the total curie i content of AGW as they do in Table 2.2 of Supplement No. 2 as well."
1058 6 } NRC Staff would console us about their lack of serious consideration of the transuranic in the AGW because on a curie n or activity basis they comprise less than 1%. To me this is absurd. Essentially all the curles in Table 2.2 (i.e.1020/1021.2 or 99.88%) consist of H-3. However the relative cancer risk of i i Pu-239 to that of H-3 as given by the ratio of the inverses of i (MPC)a for the two radionuclides is Sx10-6/2x 10-12 -2,500,000. In other words one would want the content (curles) of the transuranic to be 0.000048 rather than 1% for the risks to be comparable. Furthermore, there are many publications showing the (MPC)a for Pu-2391s f ar to large.
- 8. The Licensee and NRC Appear Not to Be Giving Serious
( Consideration to the Modifications I Have Suggested to the Vaporation Method. See Recommendations dated March 19,1987 and March 2, 1988.
- 9. The EIS Fails to Comply with Requirements of the NEPA (see SVA/TMI A's Response June 20,1988)
- 10. There Has Not Been Provided Convincing Evidence That the Evaporator Method as Proposed Will Provide an Overall Decontamination Factor of 1000.
Problems associated with liquid transfer, spilla;1, j accidents, shut-down, equipment f ailure, sabotage, ( explosion, reduced efficiency, etc. have not been given l thorough consideration.
E. l -v 1059 l 1. The Need for a Biological Effectiveness Factor Greater Than ( O I f r L w Energy Beta Radiation Has Not Been Recognized. Toward the end of their tracks electrons or beta particles have a very high specific lonization or stopping power, dE/dx, and thus approach alpha and fast neutron particle values of RBE. The ICRP now sets the RBE of alpha and fast neutrons at 20. Many studies indicate the RBE for low ~ energy beta radiation such as that from H-3 and C-14 is greater than 1 and may be as high as 5. In other words, this factor alone would Indicate an underestimate of the population dose and the concomitant risks of radiation induced malignancies and genetic defects by a f acotr as much as 5. J (
- 12. It is Unrealistic to Assume That C-14, I-129 and Cs-137 q
Will Be Removed Completely by the Proposed Evaporation System. This must be proven by experiments which have never been done and one must not rely on theory.
- 13. The Evaporation System of 1/5 gal / min Would Take 319 Days of Continuous Operation with No Shut Down anJ j
I Perfect Operation. This is too long to hold a tiger by the taill Actually the operation probably would take over 2 years under the most favorable circumstances. With the mo' deifications I have i i 1 ( suggested, it would take much longer. O 14 Neither the Licensee Nor the NRC Seem to Know What the l
1060 8 Natural Sackground Radiation is in the Local Area. (3 The Licensee gives the background as 300 mrem / year and the NRC gives it as 178 mrem / year This is the starting ). point in determining the addeo radiation risk and accurate values must be provided area-wide for this. This information is essential for those writing the last chapter and the conclusion of Who Done Itl
- 15. The Licensee and the NRC Have Consistently Underestimated e
Both the Occupational and Public Radiation Dose and Risk of Radiation Induced Malignancies and of Genetic Defects. l See my comments dated March 19,1987 and March 1988 and Appendices B and C. ( lt should be appreciated that since both H-3 and C-14 deposit in the gonads and in DNA and RNA, they are a L' genetic risk to children yet to be born a thousand years from now. Because of the reactions H+)3+3He and 3 I4DJ3+I4N, one of the 46 chromosomes in a germ cell of a homo sapien can end up suddenly with a hydrogen atom replaced by a helium atom of gas or a carbon atom may be replaced by a nitrogen atom. B. Present Opinion Regarding Disposal of Cont;,minated Water at TMI-2 BeGause of the above and other facts I have concluded that all plans for G the paporation procedu're.should be abakdoned.\\l believe, as indicated,y a ( above, that all the contaminated water should be treated by the SDS and g3 EPICOR-Il Systems following appropriate retreatment. The solid or slurry residue from these treatments should be sized, mixed with
1061 i - e 9 cement in 55 gal. drums and sent to a licensed burial ground, e.g. Hanford. The contaminated water should be placed temporarily in large g holding tanks. Other pretreatments, ion exchange chemical steps and better systems that are effective in removing stable boron and more of the radionuclides should be investigated and applied where feasible. The holding tanks should be so installed and located that any leakage is known with absolute certainty to drain into a sampling sump tank. Great care must be taken to prevent any explosive materials entering the tanks via sabotage or otherwise. Under no conditions should cement, sollofying or coagulating materials be placed in these tanks. It is likely plans will be undertaken to remove this contaminated water at a later date and we do not wish to be confronted then with problems such as those that stalled and daunted operations at West Valley. ( C. Recommended Future Course of Action' 6 Ultimately, it will be desirable to drain the tanks of the 2.1x10 plus gallons of contaminated water. Most cf the activity (curies)in the tanks will be that of H-3. Various estimates of the H-3 activity are provided us but if the initial level is 1000 C1, the drop off in time of H, 3 Cs-137, Sr-90 and Pu-239 will be as follows, Time (v) H-3 C1 Cs-137Ci Sr-90Ci Pu-239u Ci 0 1000 0.03 0.08 300 1 945 0.029 0.078 300 10 568 0.028 0.062 300 30 184 0.015 0.038 300 50 59 0.009 0.023 300 3 100 3.5 0.003 0.007 299 E I^ 200 0.012 ~ 0.000s ' i 0.0005 $9'8 (O.dpb298 dd ( 300 0.00004 0.00005 0.00004 297 (0.000297 ci) 20,000 ~0 ~0 ~0 169 h 100,000 ~0 ~0 ~0 18
Y 1062 10 f Since most of the initial activity is that of H-3 (HL-12.262 y), O the above column 2 represents the total activity in the tanks as V well as that of H-3 until about 300 years when the CS-137, Sr-90 1 and H-L Jctivities are all about equal. Af ter 200 years the Pu-239 activity is about equal to that of Cs-137 and Sr-90. The Pu-239 activity predominates and is significant af ter 20,000 years when it consists of 127,000 maxiumu permissible body burdens for a member of the public (i.e. 0.0013 p Cl). Many f actors and circumstances will determine how long the contaminated water should remain in the tanks. It would seem to me, however,30 years might be reasonable. With proper adjustment of ph the tanks should not leak in this time while the activity of H-3 will have dropped to 18.4% and that of Cs-137 and ( Sr-90 to about 50%. If over this time a 5000 gal. tank gave indication of leakage its contents could be mixed with concrete O as it is emptied into about 100 55 gal. drums and then shipped to a state operated medium level repository. D. Concluding Comment I appreciate very much the value of having an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, ASLB, and for several years I served on a NRC committee to recommend memberships on these ASLB's. For the l most part I believe members of these Boards strive to be impartial but in many cases they have a conflict of interest and I believe the i selection process should be modified to minimize this conflict. It, p g, would seem that membership on(these Boards should reflect as ec;ually y(f _i q c ( as possible the views and goals bf the public living near the nuclear power plant as well as views of the nuclear utility. I am not convinced that this is always the case.
e*
- r 1063 11
[ On another point, I believe the method of financing the ASLB hearings should be improved. Members of ASLB and their consultants and the NRC staff are paid by the NRC and there should be some arrangement by which members of the public and their organizations that contest plans of the utility that affect them can be paid a fee and have coverage of their expen5es. Some years ago (just a few days before I had to rush home to testify before Senator Kennedy in a Congressional hearing regarding consequences of the TMI-2 accident) I testified in the Gorlieben Hearings aaalnst a proposed method of the West Germans to dispose of radioactive waste in dome salt. It was my impression that both sides of this controversy were financed by the W. German government. Why can't we in the U.S. be as democratic as the W. Germans? Because I know we have no such system in the U.S. and some ( members and or';anizations of the local community are striving so nobly for their Constitutional rights I have not asked to be paid and will not O request payment for many days I have spent in preparation for these hearings; this in spite of the f act my sole business and livelihood is that of consulting in health physics and defending in our courts plaintiffs who have evidence of injury from excessive exposure to ionizing radiation. l This is not a criticism of the present ASLB but a plea that the NRC will try to make this process more democratic ond f air to the heroic members of the public that try to make this democratic process a useful and successful operation even though most of . those in this community and in other communities where I have f 5 [ intervened relative to nuclear utility proposals believe there is ( much room for improvement of this process.
Reference:
John M. Palms, B.G. Wahlig, D.M. Walker, M.R. Ghave,
_ _ = _ _ _ _ _. l.,#- 1064
- +.
12 " Problems Associated with Routine In-Plant Radioactive Effluent -{: g. Monitoring Systems at U.S. Light-Water Reactors." Accepted for publication In Nuclear Safety" l Respectfully Submitted I Karl Z. Morgan ( O 9
1065 1 JUDGE BLOCH: But you have spoken. ) .2' FURTHER STATEMENT OF MARY STAMOS'OSBORN U 3 MS. OSBORN: I forgot something that may be new, 4 and it was written down, I forgot to say it. It's very 5 brief. Okay? 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, proceed. 7 MS. OSBORN.: I'm Mary Osborn. I also oppose 8 storing radioactive cleanup water on site. Some people do 9 not. TMI, which is on an earthquake fault, did experience 10 earthquake tremors in April, 1984. Tremors were felt on 11 site by employees, but their monitoring equipment did not 12 register the quake because TMI's device was set too high. 13 I am concerned with the findings of tritium under 14 TMI, from the South parking lot the whole way up to the 15 North parking lot. Is the island so fissured for this to 16 occur, and where did all the tritium come from? How did it 17 get all under the Island? 18 I have seen maps of this and I did give it to a 19 scientist two years ago, and it was not returned. If it is 20 needed, it can be located. 21 Property owners on both sides of TMI River have 22 found tritium in their wells. 23 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 78/Bla24 When you come forward now, we don't know names. 25 So just please announce your name when you come forward. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1066 L 1 STATENENT OF JAMES McINTOSH e 2 MR. McINTOSH: My name is James McIntosh and I 3 live in Lancaster. I speak this evening as one unlettered in 4 nuclear science, as one who has at best only a crude 5 understanding of the workings of a nuglear reactor, as one 6 often puzzled by the-stultifying jargon of nuclear physics. 7 In short, I come as a layman. 8 Nonetheless, I'm certain I should speak this 9 evening, despite my shortcomings as a scientist. 10 I am an environmentalist. And insofar as that 11 term has any meaning when politicians like George Bush claim 12 the same thing, I have a stake in the decisions being made 13 this week in this Courtroom. 14 As an environmentalist, however, I have not yet 15 stood outside a nuclear power plant and chanted " Hell, no, 16 we won't glow," but have come to believe instead that 17 approaching an issue as fundamental and serious as nuclear 1 18 power with a clear head and an open mind is important and 19 necessary. i 20 I believe we must look beyond our unfounded fears l l 21 as well as beyond the simplistic full-page advertisements 22 GPU has run in the local newspapers. 23 The truth is, I have an inclination, a desirs, to 24 believe in the authenticity of GPU's testimony presented in this room. My wife and I have attended these hearings three 25 I l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l E o
1067 1 times this week, and I have considered the copious testimony of GPU's expert witnesses. j")N 2-3 I want to believe that.the evaporation of 2.3 4 million gallons of tritiated water will pose no harm to the 5 public. I am the public~. I live in Lancaster. I'm fond of 6 it and its outlying farms and forests. I want this valley, 7 its people, its animals, its trees and its crops all to 8 remain healthy. 9 But in my efforts to understand this issue, to 10 research it, I am repeatedly burdened -- to borrow a phrase 11 from GPU's witnesses -- by a propagation of uncertainty. 12 There are many obstacles to my believing in the authenticity 13 of the testimony I so desperately want to believe in. 14 I want to put my mind at ease about the (~315 evaporation of the irradiated water, but my mind won't ease. ul 16 I'm skeptical, as there are many people in the Susquehanna 17 Valley, of the testimony of all experts. 18 We heard, for instance, the voice of experts in 19 1977 when the NRC refused to hear citizens' testimony about ) 20 the dangers of damage to the uranium core. The NRC I 21 considered a Class 9 nuclear incident resulting in nuclear 22 core damage too improbable to warrant serious consideration. 23 GPU has provided many experts from its own 24 organization; I am convinced by some of their testimony. At 25 the same time, outside experts with equally impressive Heritage Reporting Corporation () (202) 628-4888
1068 1 credentials have challenged and contradicted parts of their ( 's 2 testimony. All of these leave the layman suzzled and at U 3 times disgusted. We are asked to put faith in models and 4 enlightened predictions to arrive at a conclusion. 5 GPU's witnesses want us to believe in the accuracy 6 of their predictions. Let me illustrate why I find that 7 difficult. 8 I read in Tuesday's Intellicencer Journal about 9 new evidence that has come to light regarding the extent of 10 the reactor core's meltdown. In 1979, TMI's Vice President 11 for Generation, Herbein, estimated 'ly 1 percent of the 12 fuel rods in TMI-2 were damaged, and said he expected things 13 to be back to normal in a few weeks. His prediction was 14 wrong. On April 15, 1987, Donald McPherson of the Y 315 Department of Energy presented the NRC with an updated r ) 16 estimate of the damage. This time, 35 percent of the core. 17 Last Monday, James Broughton, Manager of the TMI-2 Accident 18 Evaluation Program at the Idaho National Engineering Lab 19 estimated the damage at greater than 50 percent. Franklin 20 Standerfer, GPU's Director for Plant Cleanup, said that l 21 guesswork was involved in estimating core damage. It's not 22 a science, he said in an interview. They' re just estimated i 23 numbers. 24 Naturally, it's difficult for laymen like myself 25 to objectively sort out the ncience from the estimated Heritage Reporting Corporation (') (202) 628-4888 s/
1069 1 numbers in the testimony of the experts. 2 Experts, like Ernest Sternglas, have disputed the 3 official claims that the release of radioactive vapor at 4 TMI-2 in March 1979 posed no threat to the surrounding S' population. He notes, for instance, that gases inhaled when 6 fission products pass by in a cloud of steam produce a dose 7 about 130 times greater than the dose absorbed by the body 8 from external. gamma radiation. Sternglas has criticized the 9 government's attempts to minimize the severity of the TMI-2 10 accident. 11 Still other experts, like Dr. Karl Z.
- Morgan, 12 former Director of the Oak Ridge National Lab's Health 1
13 Physics Division, drew far more serious conclusions than the L 14 government did, predicting illness, leukemia and cancer 15 deaths resulting from the TMI accident. And he used the 16 NRC's reported figures of 2 millirem exposure to a 17 population of 1 million within 50 miles of the plant, the j 1 18 same figures. 19 obviously, the issue of expertise is paramount i 20 here. As technology continues to outpace the layman's 21 understanding of technology, citizens are more and more 22 forced to decide to what extent we will rely upon the 23~ governance of experts. 24 Unlike elected officials, who must always answer 25 to the citizenry, experts do not always have to answer to Heritage Reporting Corporation (} (202) 628-4888
.o 1070 1 us. Ano when they do, I'll admit we aren' t always capable gg2 of an informed response. 3 Whatever these hearings are -- some might see 4 them, for instance, as a faceoff between a well-heeled, 5 occasionally smirking legal Goliath versus a struggling, I l 6 valiant citizen's David -- they are about government by 7 expertise. 8 Frances Skolnik is serving the citizens of the l 9 Susquehanna Valley with integrity, with intelligence and 10 with a laudable courage. She is neither a scientist nor an 11 attorney. But' she is forced to swim upstream in an absurd 12 torrent of scientific and legal jargon. More than any of us 13 laymen, she has struggled to become an expert. She has done 14 her homework. But what of the rest of us, who for one reason or ggg15 16 another, have not chosen to give up a year of our lives to 17 respond to this perceived threat to our environment? We 18 have two recourses. 19 First, we can educate ourselves as we are able; 20 and second, we can place trust in experts. 21 Unfortunately, the profit motive is bound up in 22 this whole enterprise. We have learned, painfully, that the 23 profit motive rarely exists alongside environmental 24 responsibility. It almost never brings out the best in us. 25 And we are all aware that TMI was built to turn a profit. Heritage Reporting Corporation lll (202) 628-4888 lm 'm
1071 ~ 1 In fact, amid the March 1979 reactor crisis, TMI }2 PR man Bill Gross was insisting to reporters that, I quote: 3. "At this point, we're not concerned about public safety, but 4 the economics of the situation." 5 TMI-2 was put into commercial operation at 11:00 6 p.m., December 30, 1978, which permitted Met. Ed. to claim a 7 $12 million investment tax credit and a $20 million 8 depreciation allowance on its 1978 Federal Tax Return. 9 But, between March 28, 1978 and December 30, 1978, 10 TMI-2 was shut down 71 percent of the time. Workmen had to l 11 repair steam leaks, water leaks at electrical connections. 12 In all, 22 major design defects were in TMI-2 during the i I 13 construction phase. 14 On December 30, one NRC inspector claimed the )15 plant lacked test data concerning several plant functions, 16 including the opening and closing of the pressurizer's 17 electromatic relief valve, the same valve that failed to 18 close that fateful morning of March 28, 1978. 19 Now, GPU is concerned about the costs of the 20 Interveners' plan to store the irradiated water on the 21 Island. They claim, using what expert Robert Piccioni 22 called an overstated, worst-case scenario, that the 23 Interveners' plan will cost roughly three times what the 24 evaporation will cost. 25 I appreciate GPU's concern for saving the Heritage Reporting Corporation (')N (202) 628-4888
1072 1 ratepayers money. But I would prefer to pay for the Island (D storage, since I believe it poses less threat to the people ~N 2 3 and the other living creatures of the Susquehanna Valley. 4 There is one cost I would prefer not to pick up, 5 however. That, of course, is the $800,000.00 GPU has 6 already spent designing and building the evaporator that has 7 not yet been approved by the NRC. 8 Many of us in the Valley are thus skeptical of 9 GPU's testimony. We also have fears -- fears that some 10 might consider paranoid -- that the evaporator, once in 11 place, will be used to evaporate tritiated water from other 12 facilities. As such tritium producing plants as Savannah 13 River's become closed vue to mind-boggling malfeasance, our 14 Nation is faced with increasing pressure to process nuclear (~N 15 waste at other plants. Will two years of safe, 'x_/ 16 insignificant evaporation at TMI pave the way for future 17 decades of evaporation? Will laws be changed, in the crisis 18 of the moment, to permit other facilities to evaporate waste 19 water at TMI? 20 We are left with impossible choices: exposing 21 plant workers versue exposing the public; living with the 22 accident-generated waste or shipping it off to some other 23 exploited region of the country; listening to the 24 conflicting testimony of equally persuasive experts or i 25 relying upon our own darkest technological fears to guide l Heritage Reporting Corporation i
- _)
(202) 628-4888 l (%s l l f l l l
-1073 1 our hearts. The nuclear industry thus far has offered us 2 only dilemmas. 3 What we decide here this week and next week is 4 fundamental. Do we pay the price of cleaning up'this mess 5 as well as we can? Or do we save $8 million and take a risk 6 that some experts swear we can't afford? 7 Which experts will we trust? 8 (Applause) 9 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you, Mr. McIntosh. 10 STATEMENT OF AL MANIK 11 MR. MANIK: Al Manik, Middletown. 12 Please explain -- 13 JUDGE BLOCH: Al Minik? 14 MR. MANIK: Manik. M-a-n-i-k. JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 315 16 MR. MANIK: Please explain how the mechanism to be 17 used to disperse the contaminated water will work. What 18 concerns me is how much pressure and how much power will be 19 needed to rid the_ contaminated water. For instance, how far 20 will this mechanism be capable of throwing out the '21 contaminated water? 22 Will the contaminated water travel a distance of 23 ten feet, 100 feet, 1,000 feet, a mile? Will one particular 24 area get doused with contaminants and be in a position to .25 cause a cluster of cancers? What will th6 method of Heritage Reporting Corporation () (202) 628-4888
1074 1- ~ dispersement do to the environment?' What will this 2' contaminated water do when it once again gets washed into 3 the river? 4, Does'this panel have the answer? Does this panel' 5 care, as long as GPU rids the. water that needs to be moved? 6 What is the hurry to rid the water from the 7 damaged reactor? Is this the cheapest and the only way of. 8 handling the situation? 9 If this situation happened in your back yard, 10 would you like it? 11 Just treat us as you would want to be treated. 12 Give us the truth that the NRC failed to deal with. Stop 13 and think what we have been saying. 14 If cigarettes can cause cancers,'stop and think of )15 what this. contaminated water can do to the segment of the 16 population. 17 I ask this. This is the third presentation on 18 this, and I am very curious whether you have any information 19 or your cohorts on this type of mechanism. What is it, what l
- 2 'O will it do, how will it do?
Do you have any information? l 21' JUDGE BLOCH: We have an extensive public record. j 22 And where is the public document room? There is a public 23 document room near here? Do you know where it i.s? 24 MR. MASNIK: In Harrisburg, I think Walnut, Walnut 25 Street, the State Library. j Heritage Reporting Corporation -[} (202) 628-4888
1075 li JUDGE BLOCH: The State Library has it and -- MR. MANIK: 'Is this panel' familiar with this, this lr-C 2 %n) -3 mechanism? 4 JUDGE BLOCH: .Yes. We have an extensive document 5 on the nature of the. evaporator and vaporizer. 6 MR. MANIK: Okay. ~ 7 JUDGE BLOCH: And it's part of our record. 8 MR. MANIK: All right. Thank you. 9 (Applause) 10' JUDGE BLOCH: We would, before the next speaker, j 11 wo would just like to take a ten-minute break, and we can 12 come back and be fresh at that time. It's 8:33. We'll 13 start at exactly 8:43. 14 (Whereupon, a.brief recess was taken.) 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Please come to order. 16 Welcome. 17 STATEMENT OF ELISE MEYER-BOTHLING 18' -MS. MEYER-BOTHLING: Thanks. Shall I go ahead? 19 JUDGE BLOCH: Yes. Please begin with your name. 20 MS. MEYER-BOTHLING: Okay. My name is Elise j i 21 Meyer-Bothling, and I'm from Baltimore. ] i 22 JUDGE BLOCH: If you'd spell that, the Reporter L
- 23 can get it right, if you' d like her to.
Your name. 1 24' MS. MEYER-BOTHLING: E-1-1-s-e M-e y-e-r hyphen 25 B-o-t-h-1-i-n g. Heritage Reporting Corporation ~% (G (202) 628-4888 I L L i i { 1 N
1076 i 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you very much. rx2 MS. MEYER-BOTHLING: I have three points I'd like O. 3 to make. And the first concerns two newspaper articles. 4 And I'd like to request that these be entered into the 5 record of this proceeding. 6 The first article is from the Wall Street Journal. 7 It's on February 8, 1988, Page 6. The title is: " Jump in 8 1986 Death Rate Sparks Dispute. Did Chernobyl Cause Surge 9 in U.S. Mortality?" It' a by Ellen Graham. 10 And to make my first point, I'd like to briefly 11 summarize and comment on the article. It says that there 12 was a surge in United States mortality during the Summer of 13 1986. Some experts are attributing this to the radioactive 14 fallout from Chernobyl's radioactive cloud. 15 Although this theory has not been proven, the (~S 16 information has relevance to the evaporation dilemma, 17 because both fallout from Chernobyl and evaporation involve 18 human exposure to low dose radiation. 19 Tho article goes on to talk about Marvin Lavenhar. 20 He's Director of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at New 21 Jersey Medical School. He said that the statistics cannot 22 prove this theory, but so far, there has been no other 23 explanation. 24 The Chernobyl accident occurred in April, 1986. 25 And in the three months following -- that's May, June -- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l l l l ~
i 1077 I 1 four months -- May, June, July and August -- between 20,000 g2 and 40,000 more deaths than usual occurred in America. 3 Perhaps it was something in the air. 4 Jay Gould, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy 5 Studies, has calculated that the probability of the large 6 number of extra deaths occurring by chance is less than one l l 7 in a million. 8 The fallout levels varied across America. Fallout 9 was monitored in the 50 states by measuring iodine 131 in 10 milk. There was correlation between death rates and the 11 level of fallout. Where iodine 131 levels were lowest, 12 Summer mortality was just about normal. But the higher the 13 fallout measured, the higher was the increase in mortality. 14 Infant mortality rates also were correlated g 15 geographically, according to radioactivity levels measured. 16 The expert witnesses from the NRC, Dr. Yaniv and 17 Dr. Martin, were asked about their knowledge of the effects 18 of low-dose radiation on the health of human populations. 19 They both said that this cannot be ethically tested. But 20 the studies cited here do appear to have data which could be 21 studied. 22 I would like to ask if Dr. Martin and Dr. Yaniv 23 are aware of this data and also could they comment on the 24 study cited? 25 The second article is from The Baltimore Sun, Heritage Reporting Corporation lll (202) 628-4888
1078 1 Friday, July 1, 1988, Page 18C. The title is: " Drop in -2 Infant Deaths is Linked to Closing of Peach Bottom Plant." 3 It's from the Associated Press. And I'll also want to 4 summarize it and talk about it. 5 It states that the infant mortality in Baltimore 6~ and Washington, D.C. dropped dramatically after the Peach 7 Bottom Nuclear Plant closed in March, 1987. Dr. Ernest 8 Sternglass, previously mentioned tonight -- he's a Professor 9 Emeritus of Radiological Physics at the University of 10 Pittsburgh -- he presented the. data and his explanation in 11 Bel Air this summer. He said that the drop in infant 12' mortality in Baltimore and Washington was caused by the I 13 improvement in the quality of milk shipped from the York and 14 Lancaster County areas to Baltimore and Washington. 15 Evidence is increasing that radionuclides in milk 16 are not safe for infants. Iodine 131 concentrates in the 17 thyroid gland of human adults and also the human fetus and 18 may lead to stillbirth, miscarriage, and infant 19 malformation. 20 When Peach Bottom closed, the level of 21 radionuclides in the milk produced in that area decreased 22 and the death rate of infants nourished by that milk also
- 23 decreased.
24 Dr. Sternglass stated the effect was seen in 25. infant death rates, not adult death rates, because the fetus I 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation {} (202) 628-4888
1079 l 1 and infant human forms are much more sensitive than the ~1 2 adult to the effects of low-dose radiation. G 3 Of course, the effects of low-dose radiation on 4 human mortality rates as stated in both of these articles 5 are still unproven. .I feel this information is relevant to 6 the case because GPU's testimony on health effects due to 7 low-dose radiation from the evaporator is based on 8 assumption. One assumption is that low doses of radiation 9 are harmles's to human health. Studies I've cited from the 10 Institute of Policy Studies and the University of Pittsburgh 11 Radiological Physics Department suggest that this assumption 12 is false. These studies suggest low-dose radiation has 13 caused thousands of infant and adult deaths. 14 I' d like to go on to my second point. It involves 15 a request to the NRC. Although unproven, the evidence is (~s v 16 strong that infants are the most susceptible of all in our 17 population to the ill effects of low dose radiation. I 18 would like to ask the NRC to specify their estimate of the 19 level of the radioactive iodine from evaporation which would 20 be consumed by pregnant women over the nine-month period of 21 their pregnancy. From that estimate, another estimate of 22 the level of radioactive iodine which would be concentrated 23 in the thyroid of the developing fetus needs to be stated. 24 I would ask that the expert witnesses not from the 25 NRC be asked to estimate on the risk from thyroid iodine and Heritage Reporting Corporation ('} (202) 626-4888 t,
1080 j 1 that the panel consider this' risk in its decision. [ ) My third point. concerns-iodine tablets. I was 2-3 going.to ask GPU to provide them-for pregnant women to ) l 4- .possibly-provide-their unborn children. But now, I don't 'l 5-really want to. 'I think we deserve more protection. I n 6 think the NRC can provide us with more protection than that. ) l 7 GPU can come up with a safer plan than evaporating' i.. 8 the water. A panel of consultants for the citizens' side 9 could help them come up with that solution. i 10 Thank you. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. .12 (Applause) 13 JUDGE BLOCH: And those three articles may be 14 included'in the transcript at your request. So if you would -15 hand copies to the Reporter. 16 (Two pages containing copies 17 of various newspaper articles 18 related to the possible .19 adverse health effects of 20 nuclear radiation are inserted 21 into the record and follow:) 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation -(). (202) 628-4888
1 \\ 1081 p.T s J ump m IWo Death Kate Sparks Ulspute l Did Chernobyl Cause Surgein U.S. Monality? f e I afgest hs W 9tsame Jensumes M J = --A - e= U1 afstality la the summer of 130s tas ,,b, cam. e, d m;,srem,n, ,re,me,m en ,me.co,b,.m. coalcuaded and duturted sorrw usu-w trwn a year ese ' me Umweety W Catforma N Serteley, wao spent as meaths lavesuganng the har ao me yet clairas to know the "apa* E esc. a heH a lot W gy,,df'a",,,",,,*h.e ag=ld Pa eam - u.ai. sa ,,.*- m s,we-mnuny mum un i
- 8""""'8 awa-=4 =,,*d,'wa,,a;y a-
,,.yuhm.. iii. e.se wide sumarian. He amass me April 1ses ar-dhennes + RJ +33 8 +1M h.e.te, m.nane eu.e.e sad.
- 1.cu-WLu
,h
- =,, = ga::: a==,;
mma=n<*- - c=-* Am.ee a.s. prep urspr is,.et e .m.do.= .h .g.se cam ence rw ut -n . mee M,.y osa, is,mo,,mm, me,,ew Ogures alww the leap la dealAs, hu of. Jersey agaecal Schoof's deparuneet of imd so oHicial explanuma for tL Be hinuut. Usag me nause's mar esasus re-seedeclae and sammesty Sham itamireL a public aff.zrs specianst hepas a chians more data on the M the goveramtal's National Center for gtnas, he campared surasser deam ruas precat mass W Ge asceu daams to de m m g mg mma HeaAA Stahsucs in HyattsytDe. Md., maasund at Envmmets M ternume whomer hianiang rashasenvity strumed that IAe data the Mr. Could used an sun provmanaat W mastormg m "maaes hadagical smaae." Se he adds, "Ya canaat toot u thas thp a the data Fual monanty agums for 1986 an he. la stMa hke Arunas and Tesas, where base and say. 'So what?' " After betag gu-trig assembwd for release utts summer. todas 131 levels were the lowes. We sum Rapy negann, he sad. *!'M hoa per.
- Lle actag that the overall 1806 mortahty sur monahty rates em abad somal m, g,,ed that me,re is enough there, t,o m,en,t, ad,3,,,,g,,gew,,,,
,g, Agure a* aus Calaformis and uashmgiaa. uten cm. UA.sa,l me largest ever reconsed in tne centranons of immas tal were me nara m o,gg.; amanrs emusanty, and equany aa.d uw mcnase was sett no be cunsmust wie me grown in the popula. mconsed the sharpsut lacreases la mortal-unstee to overtaserpret ham " una over a yean of age ny: atom n amove me previous ownmer. But. maad liarYin Lavenbar. dimeter of The pauert had tw across the asumry. the A has re &ccammast d y coat of Mr. Geund's mee, sass) he M' , e. A,S,.u can"a'g"".d,"c j s,c m.m'd '7 lacr= prem.o the dage-g n.a Gemid an.. t s. ca e. a y gh -
= - " - ~ ~ = = = =
U1 F5 Slau wh No. lataat menery ato nurt ii.e cau.su.cs.,e,i,er.s.,i..erm ang =ap a= am.sg -n. =,a.tu na,v :=,:'s,*=r.,m><r:,* i b c he.
- d. men yin, i, mm, e,
c,eam, mu,d,,,,,e,, chan,,,,,,un., factors and so far we can't had any aspla-The govermansat staumacal ceaner carre Ancepukiny does tot asem reasonab6e."
- aauen, pils but das act asahar vital slanguts Sut he taal the vert "M eilateret and it Startlaag Anomajy pnroded by sk sianet !as previsansM ms" stand be evalunned a na merus,"
k last ye tahiy fesens-and m af Mr. Gewd' mum io,ar. as prenmanary U.S. vital sta.=au--- e a namp.s Idr. O.se,d we,penant Ms report lawr e -reame avaaame.a., b, mm as me,asum, ma,erene ,, AU U.E. deam and hink ernaGcases, state. Mr. GouW Ingan a computer en raeans la Was Gers amy. The maus-anahsas to detect say significant Ductua-Thas sampk shows an lagmar af shes es.. utaan. who wrved a the EPA's acware W deems W h mer of M Pmhr@ I of u monuov vnai mausus reporu w ary aparu d 'ad *am 8n= me advisory heard dufter the Carte,r admaus-tsons as birVI and dram raias. Has survey C) imum, m,d a h, as m,,y aren. the sauonal he&Ah.etatep center tumd hhou a 4 heresse-terut.tn 5 years W twanh. anJ stauste up a suruant anomaiy: is ur. st.:y. cai:y avast.t carm.a_.a ta aa.eusi / utrough August jared immediately follow. 1.laklag the lacreaar la deems le Cher-marmiaas call "asw P values." Em he N ing the esaster. between 30.800 and eUlI0 anhyt has reased sumy questasas, ameRg said has messament was tempered by more Amencans man usuaJ dast. them theme: New emeld harweil eNects he adread W what er results Eught Eneaa." The discovery-and ha effort to tank u leh la the U1 and est t Europe, weem As ist theruskyl raenaruvtty he saad, h to Chernobyl-have touched off a attenufle mdaause Amis em W to a usnes "We regasd this as metery a typeessas. Aad how Gened danshs accur ao *aad hepr esament cas expiaan t shon of bara.r', who means t esmaDy assect-A sehaw heued by the strong paamcas mat enth& theresbyL"- swirt around me queeues er nuclear safety. u1wr Mr. Gouw s work has,,, and wat geenc manums ud caawt_ ceived considerable suaauss W Europe,it tant take pean to emhp? was largely igewed a the U1 emul the the hypsthms B afvemend by Bramut M M WdAN Bnuen weetly, the Economist, reported it J. Il8Ftglass, elsetLas prelesser of rades> in as u1 eeum v aan. m. agies paymes a m. Uav=ny w P in W M ser.s sy ur. Gowd cuccum. me pnas. hursa *no has agurie presumenuy a pam 8"* '8 " **8"$8 8 fanan a heemt. "Se"r as"wis that inrW. hi-A arsma mudy that 8 uad ** esamed ausshu af lauha'sta denu"m bani> mi a muy stra mams cowd in.are eteurred Dy chance as laae thea eu, un a mulaan. The as because the esassahl famed mestam a amm Omsensus maa M aggeten hv4 amar auchar pattern of deems la the U1 has hoes n. abet, mined husus of hgh Ami maa-W has pressplad Une plasmal um. sue as mm mand h ammainsi & martaady sLahan. la me a years prior as hsunam Wlhelm ta esagt a massM luks. Ise manumer months have. e avec NFa-sershir matar Goetna m the Unst-age, centriended 3L75 er the telal year's lagested laatspes eenesstrale a was ed gemen, a ladural eElsAnj mid gena deathL ergmas like the myned and hane marrow cealas,Sul as me esamer af 135. the pse, punged as sem nas 3%.me and arraeals asma over har pensts' g,g,y'Juha tenes. the etnisf er rees-hagnost _' _ pregerens mee m, Theur Ause pmducts also produer " free g,,Dr.p et the Mausnel l and seu ate " as atm nummer ever. reecan." camaker enesculus man gravi-cza,issmuas.med est ou erumh ] age for me threr guesshg years. Is man, laae to seu membranes, destreyag the shady enspissed last summer swr, sacrtahey as generagy at me lowest sell If bene marrow er wbste hisms seals agissai that altedren and levet am damagaiL the body's Isamese sysian ahms g isIBm age af 30 who can he limpsitet massyheery had an Is> DeathAlleut Casrelaties ",",,,,"g piadsman of lashanab The radmacun caud emannung from Aasrism mesh au8r ="'*"I ,et and Dr. amm.he.M tit. S m,laharsawye m se sb smenta Imm re.iera.shes e,,,as,vwt,re,sca,sr,e,,rt,ved. a me, w,A,,a me ar U mener mm a m.msa a m h. a, m,ana d, destas a popuhuna esosaang en the casud's paa and me meeam h mEdamnpumatthe rasaues.y e.de an.1 at h.eph enema ogafgu U1 mman.tp888f $ h,e --.sa where.d as,n a, eve,ma,t,re.gisms sie, leves W ramaa,e an vam W D,. ae a== I, sms. m e s.ma. esed ervels teamed tetrrahie by me ger-aaminer. 80e suggests tht Chareatyt rehe-esmesesJ m ffia m man M ~ man snar have hammes as Annas of pesa massumana aansynes that a aheady , eramam. When kr'. Gmaid innhas! M sannalley pie-hha the etterty ame teorin-with ab unser way. Chamar manalEy dela ready wanhased minime systema. Ese em hang entmand der as sus em8" daaa by gang.anc region he turand up a chen). as aar mutmar pseerjinnes an the e.manry. Iie aned. fman uLa Ilha met cane &asam batma Asams and menacow Thas asary hast beam widely ma3P ,is h.ch a isto e,ma overy us suussy, Dr. Esent said the asudy wilt samasssese sithe e6 ansas in 88 annen that aantain the 'aWiuy 8'N incr manner pseur pinses I
L "m = h mU 1 o e h. gf e rs a odl ns s to e mnt ie aien p s t t rT z hEg4P i".d ph ot at y t s t e Q i =f n eh aiosn sl hagi n o e t et rgs a h i esma a pt es hgo tr os r "e . J ag int eurc c i e t l t u c n ny Ql e t M ie ups ei e ez e o n rc t a f n e eohr u r edt hinv s dmthoeh yd r e l a r e o a oe od t r a 'e a i c r s lo "s a u y e gutep h r nua d e he r te0o air iel f t m$ s e g mab t t s t e ea ivu yhi n mJ i s ha e hohe i ot r o u n r d tat aia a a u st a P w "m ys s n s ro i t g g t r t u s zg to" o u ngh 5 sc ee anm &a" Ur a v o t .e el dh agn s a3d eeh g iual t n: om t Ui m af t t i e r et k mp raa rSs edbt n o qh r a s u hg c e 5S4.t tp s t e t e a emibd a m El ao da h r-d Qd aBr n e ce t c e p Wfb C md a und t ei il d c ek a p r.'eyme e s mte yi . f a e e. s nb t y u e o",eaenFcm ema Lssnl Agi us f h s s ge c r pahoe a rf e a e i hpcp ponc wJmUmb eob ir ao t ck r o a t ci r p t Y g T T l s s - e- .. n gl rn esd oes - - - I=a qisig s@ a c ny gnama oei h r T aea n eniogmf o i i r ig nwrtcerf T d g t at t e a nn = ek yoo b a t, V srm is e r .m t t t f aoe aide ml ast wt eobot pi o a r a o umB loh n amenyf t t h coeee t t r a s.o nQ ? er a aU kh nih h g M hh al s n noihh ter let t nt s I t ah nt t ia a C h a yi i o".kb ?i.1 T e e t onk c o c gned amuvie iahi a l a f s d t a pls i Ao at er dc gyg%cfy t r P t ngv",t g : c Csiaee o aiah a d u sbnioPaimt no v s t eyei urisf so nl S o nmr d a c I d a o n ai t t f b t u at T s o ay e o o lct t e a ah e a T nt r nsepb p-r r e r h t h h e s s onot dCt ya r a ct i le e o rt sBin e o t a e r" i e i u nlpb".t ga=P[,b 2 d a nel h oet ti yB u t gca t s f r n vt Npouml ob s smxi aum e r "e of gc e f sh r .n nh b nut ret Cte6i u d u mc i f t i er t d ih n a c no a e n al rt er c e oif c -E "I eee a c o a f ,sp iges eePee s8 r t f oe a t rbt nht a9 sCel gdt oN9 Py eo o eD ccl ny l 5 pit f a t gnh tost gs et S gf h is1 wd ne i s e t r s nBt n n ege h eord n ine U f r gd eanr noi e pn orye o f e eh a ohMz vTmt e nt e einaPeh py3 gd pnMdh yaTa" n yH r t a i t n oc n neo ut uaa a xh h n t yhi oe pi i t t olpM bt ccP oc uiadt s al l l agd;g ad
- g. ya4i s - s nf e
be d fo el h mh ioo se ur pt C =s [ - t Eg s nl g t r or t k e n H i ci iac nl i. c cv s e l b b 4 acdim (( S gC 6 d a st S l is 6 8 a as " Fin CU h.l t P U 8 9 S ra es n i waosir C Ut l 5 5 em I
- 3. 1 5 t
I{ detaw d C 8 a 3 i t f h o n arSo I g >1. E i f of G sl lal sng Gb o t a rc g o r f r d pf e l t ie i,ysF2 b O g [O I i t t odt a ru pd= u ai s r e i r po sd hl kVe l l o gdN As ut el s remlye GEgG d t ia6 lgt v i d s o i, s h st h nt. a C eT S g a e8 f 9dla[ el h s d8 et e t cf h b I edd9 n e E-i. h nh I d [O Ng ah n > tmF d n 1 a t ot a "6 f rf t T g deinMy H 9 en E l es b g g 4 yo ot i [s S I S nused G C S[ N f d y d gh a rt nhe t gW0 g eladl re [H I W n db - - f s .f d nrs r. c s k Riig 8 e u cc m "I I e h trk rJMs [ f[g [C lod pi pi c g ee s u o h O n a n a >i;g g =.g I s g i d "y a t rt t n s s nni J ori r o a n a pi h sf l e laal L cs ass n a aodot ed gpr al n a sf i e ouleie or t .t n al f al sct a =i t . dpi o idi c d a eunM iumctuien r a c e c uhi di wh n ya mMi kl ndo dmh o te t Eg==t nt a ent n ca r l ed d nn riUf Ha neNdEm t i a r s ha aasaenEe e lo aet a o r l T m vt rn n a l t t ] i e s gi et o h t n aciag a c )- r o t r ye t r f Wnsmen a ad n n nlehi r ac ldt oa nh a n r t y..?aI g t h e opni M"toie s Bl P o S o pd ie ad t ic neet sks s t h, A dBds f ah e s Ig d mi t( f s h c ne e iPwoWmf a ais cs l t e i las phsh 2' ]= f" j wa. eis h' a s . i dn i t s eehemi ms i d p n M.t c og s ei t h yg acPThmP eo l o ac r s cscdderh r r t l ade u n e. o s a uea enh p pu glx 8 g r Pt b di o sl ik at b nieht rCeog a At R m ns ondn ,l s t t n e r n at rd t teumlat yh at r u aid ns cti Saopao .h te k s I yuel f rt gr i gh pPi porl i naagP l Ll nt k g yl c arl r t t S d elof yf as l Et hrer a, k i ai P Br .l r rdl r e nl y noo. rt e ee u o u,M . eps r s ew eMt inc or i y r n a s t r eMumw oat sgt a ted ah oe e ai e n o aoloe a mWfapyw ct rMwS prlh t r o aa i rsc CcpcRcC . eL rd n I , 3' 4 sed t h n p L c. n . e 1{ t a a t smly s, t eor h.? h tnfM ra k'a oce Ii% O l ms arosi r
- Ci
,A wcM e. _ -c:Igbn .e'.* k ~ ewk s, a g l Er ro a Mi0d pr!op ahnW c i ') r y g e l n 1 u ~ l
1083 l' STATENENT OF TOM BAILEY c 2 MR. BAILEY: Hello. My name is Tom Bailey. I' m s~ ~ 3 from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And I don't have any of the 4 expertise or knowledge of the science that that woman does 5 in her talk. l 6 I would like to say before I begin that I have 7 been in a few courtrooms, and I'd say, I don't know about 8 you folks, but this is one of the nicest courtrooms I've 9 ever been in. i 10 JUDGE PARIS: We agree. 1 11 MR. BAILEY: Sorry? / 12 JUDGE PARIS: We agree. 13 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Yes, it's a real nice color 14 scheme. ( I 15 I want to just talk on two things. One is burden 16 of proof. Burden of proof. I deal a little bit with 17 criminal law. And I think the burden of proof in criminal i 18 law, and I' recognize that this is certainly not criminal j 19 law, but that the burden of proof is upon the Commonwealth j l 20 to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty i 21 of a crime. Defense really doesn't have to show anything at 22 all, doesn't even have to take the stand. I'm sure you're 23 aware of that. And if.the person doesn't say anything, 24 there still is a presumption of innocence. 25 But in this case, the NRC, if I understand your Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 1084 j 1 . procedure,- the NRC holds the hearing, where I assume some of .- ('s 2 these gentlemen represent the utility, and some the NRC. O '3 And then there's.the Intervenor. Is that right? Frances 4 Skolnik. And then there's the Commonwealth. 5 Now, is that basically the parties that are here 6 during the hearings? 7 JUDGE BLOCH: That's correct, i 8 MR. BAILEY: Okay. The way I understand it, the 9 utility has asked for an amendment to their license. And 10 the NRC was.considering that. And then the Intervenor says, j 11 I have problems with their application. Essentially is that 12 it? Now, we come to a hearing on those problems here where 13 the, and correct me, the Applicant is asking for the change. i 14 This articles comes out -- sir, are you Mr. Bloch? ~ 15 JUDGE BLOCH: I am. 16 MR. BAILEY: Okay. The article from November 3. 17 And you're saying that the Intervenor is wrong for having a 1 18 weak case? Do you have any idea what she has already tried 19 to do? And you are saying that she has not fulfilled her 20 burden? That's totally crazy. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: What I said is that the Intervenor 22 must come forward with a proposal that is obviously superior 23 to the one -- 24 MR. BAILEY: Obviously superior. How is she to 25 propose anything? Does she have, first of all, does she Heritage Reporting Corporation j} (202) 628-4888
1.[h 1085 l f-i 1 have a nuclear degree? No. How can she even be expected to /j.2-have anything close to what the utility is going to present? v 3 Their option is obviously going'to be superior, isn't it? 4 JUDGE BLOCH: Once the -- no, that's not the case. 5 Because there are times in these proceedings when the 6 intervenor prevails. The last case I prevailed over, the-7 intervenor prevailed. 8 MR. BAILEY: Much of the argument is going to be 1 9 on the ability to show proof, right, the ability to sustain 10 the burden. 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Once -- 12 MR. BAILEY: Well, I feel, I will just -- i 13 JUDGE BLOCH: I just want to state what the 14 standard is, and then you can continue. Once the 15 Interveners demonstrate that there is an idea they have -- 16' MR. BAILEY: Sure. 17 JUDGE BLOCH: -- that they believe is obviously superior, and they outline what it is, then it is up to the 18 c 19 utility to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence -- this 20 is not criminal law. 21 MR. BAILEY: I understand that. 22 JUDGE BLOCH: This is civil law. 23 MR. BAILEY: Thank you. 24 JUDGE BLOCH: They have to prove that their 25 alternative is not -- excuse me. They have to prove that i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 }
7 0 1086 ~ 1 it's not obviously superior. ~ x /"'N 12 MR. BAILEY:.That's clear enough.. The burden. N) 3' JUDGE BLOCH: And now you-can finish. I'm not 4- . going to talk any more, because you're making the statement. l5_ ~ MR. BAILEY: I understand that. But I'd like to 6 hear what your understanding was, because as a citizen in -7 the area I don't feel that the Intervenor should ever have. 8 the procedure so controverted on him or her that they end. up 9 in a proceeding before yourselves with the' burden of proof. 10 It's totally ridiculous.- The. burden is upon the persoa that 11 is attempting to have the change to the license. And I 12 don't think it's disputed. Tell me that the low level, 13 there is not concrete evidence that low-level radiation will' 14-not cause health effects. 15 The burden should be upon them to prove that it 16 will not. They are asking to release, is that right, the 17 . tritium, low level? 18 JUDGE BLOCH: All of our.wltnesses assume that 19 low-level radiation can have health effects. 20 MR.JBAILEY: Very good. 21 JUDGE BLOCH: That there is a risk to all 22 radiation. 23 MR. BAILEY: Okay. But currently now it's not q
- 24 being released.
So I don't see how the burden should be 25 upon the Intervenor to show that there's another method. Heritage Reporting Corporation {} (202) 628-4888
3 1087 '1 The burden, I' feel, should be upon the utility to prove that e 2 it's safe. They can't do that. L .h 3-The second point is education. Now, I don't know 4 your backgrounds, because you all have a great amount of 5 expertise in your areas. I would only say that as educated iL '6 people, you have been entrusted by the administrative agency 7 that you work for to review this situation and to do wh'at 8 you think'is best at this level'. 9 The only thing I will say is, I believe the ] 10 definition of an educated person is that person who would 11 use his education -- now, you three were lucky enough to get 12 probably a pretty good education -- and have benefitted by 13 it. But the person that really uses their education is one 14 that uses the education to help those who do not'have your 15 education, and to protect those people. i 16 So I hope that you will use -- you' re very lucky 17' to have what you have. I hope you will use that education '18 to protect those of us that come up and don't have expertise 19 in this area. And I think if you use that as your standard, l 20 you'll see that it's a very high standard. 21 The last thing that I would say is that I would 22 propose to keep it on site until you three are satisfied ) 23 that there will not be any potential damage or injury to any 24 citizen due to the evaporation. 25 If you' re clear on that, then evidently they've Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . _ _ _ ___________- ____ _ __ ___ _ L
i 1088 t. 1 met their burden. j) 2 ~ Thank you. \\_l. 3-JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 4 (Applause) (E78/Bla6 (Continued on the next page.) i 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 L]15 (S 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 i 22 23 '24 25 l i Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 %.)
r___.___ I 1089 I I t/79 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Welcome. q em 2 STATEMENT OF DON HOSSLER Y-] b 3 MR. HOSSLER: I'm Don Hossler and I live in 4 Middletown which is in Dalphen County. The Representative 5 from the Government which spoke earlier is from Lancaster 6 County. And as a matter of fact, I live about two miles 7 from Three Mile Island and a real good view of the cooling 8 towers from my home. J 9 And I'm not a GPU stockholder nor do I represent 10 any constituents who work at the plant and economics really 11 have very little to do with why I'm here. 12 Over the years the Utility has promoted rosy 13 projections that really failed to materialize. If you have 14 lived here in the past nine and a half years since the r'.3 15 accident you weuld realize that the Utility in particular C/ 16 has problems with the attention to detail in adhering to 17 precedures. 18 And I think the irony is that the NRC staff in 19 using GPU's calculations want this waste water disposed of 20 expeditiously, yet, it appears would like to see Unit-2 21 mothballed for a considerable amount of time in saying, 22 basically, wait 20 years for better technology. And I say, 23 well, perhaps there will be better technology then with the 24 water which is to be disposed of. 25 I give the Utility some credit. I think recently Heritage Reporting Corporation (~T (202) 628-4888 %) _.h_m____m.-___-_m m_
1090 l' I saw where employees that were sleeping were caught and e' 2 were disciplined and some substance abuses were taken care ' (j ' 3 of. In July of this year we had a railroad car carrying a 4 load of shipping casks with radioactive fuel from Unit-2 5 drifted for quite a while, while it was unattended. There 6 has been a history of falsified documents that have been 7 through several NRC hearings. 8 Basically three months after they began generating 9 electricity in Unit-2 this Utility GPU Met. Ed. basically 10 melted 50 percent of the fuel. 11 And I feel a lot of people in the Middletown area 12 still believe that either the Utility lied to us or they 3 13 didn't really know'what they were doing. 14 And I note that the hearing here, some of the 15 things that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is looking 16 at are conclusive risk benefit analysis of the no-action 17 alternative. 18 I a.lso note that you are also looking at the cost 19 and the risk to the public of the evaporation procedure to 20 see whether the costs and risks actually exceed the' benefit. 21 The filtering ability of the evaporator, and the effects of 22 tritium alpha emitting nuclides. 23 And I would ask just like the previous speaker 24 that you tage a look at those things with utmost scrutiny. 25 I personally do not want this Utility to evaporate the water Heritage Reporting Corporation 'T (202) 628-4888 (J
l i 1091 1 1 in my background. And I can remember a Uti1~ity executive l <~s 2 back in 1980 named Mr. Koons for GPU Met. Ed. who said in a (_) 3 newspaper article that those people can move that don't want 4 that to happen. And I have lived in this area -- in that 5 area all of my life and I don't plan to move. 6 So what I'm asking you to do is scrutinize that 7 very carefully realizing that I feel a large number of the 8 private citizens are very concerned about this entire issue. 9 And I would like to just finish with bne 10 characterization, whan you buy a new automobile they say it 11 might get 32 miles per gallon, average miles per gallon, you 12 know that when you get it home it may only get about 28. 13 Also you know that if you don't maintain it properly it may 14 go down to 20, 18, 17. And I just gave you a few examples ( 3 15 of why I believe the Utility GPU Met. Ed. is still very much x_/ 16 mistrusted in this area. And I would like to use that 17 characterization that if they were allowed to use this 18 evaporating process, as time goes on I believe this Utility 19 will continue to make mistakes as they have made ever since 20 the accident. 21 And I believe that this technology, we cannot 22 afford -- we can afford very few mistakes. If we're 23 operating a candy store or if you're a newspaper carrier 24 it's a very different story. But this technology deserves 25 the utmost attention in performance. Heritage Reporting Corporation (')s (202) 628-4888 -e-____
1092 .1 So'just to restate it again, I would not like this 2 Utility to evaporate this radioactive water in my backyard, 3 and I would hope in your deliberations that you take the 4 pri / ate citizens' view of the mistrust of this Utility and 5 the record that they have established over the last nine and 6 a half years into consideration. 7 Thank you. i 8 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you, Mr. Hossler. 9 (Applause) 10 STATEMENT OF BETTY TOMPKINS 11 MS. TOMPKINS: Good evening, Judge Bloch. 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Good evening. 13 MS. TOMPKINS: Good evening,. Judges. 14 I debated whether to come back -- (~g 15 - JUDGE ELOCH: Your name? V-16 MS. TOMPKINS: My name is Betty Tompkins, I' m a 17 resident of'Lancaster, naturalized citizen for 40 years. 18 I debated whether to come back this evening and 19 then I said, what the heck, you know, all the world is a 20 stage and we're men and women and merely players, and I 21 decided to play it out to the hilt. We've played it out to 22 the hilt now for 10 years. He are the. battering rams of 23 freedom in this area, I believe that. 24 We need the judicial system to help we the 25-citizens from this -- to protect us from this technology Heritage Reporting Corporation () (202) 628-4888 l l
1093 1 that is crushing us. Crushing us by our own money. 1 l (-} 2 The Constitution, I believe, guarantees us the l \\_e 3 right to the pursuit of happiness. But here we in South 4 Central Pennsylvania are being ground down, as I said, with 5 our own money. 6 I believe very sincerely that the Founding Fathers 7 in their' concept of freedom intended the rights of the 8 individual to prevail over the rights to the state. ~ 9 I would therefore say, and my statement is short, 10 deny GPU an extension of its license because of the reasons-11 given by my friends this evening and from my personal 12 experience of a contrary knowledge to, I think it was Dr. 13 .Yaniv this afternoon? I think his name -- 14 JUDGE BLOCH: Yaniv. 15 MS. THOMPKINS: Yaniv. He said there would be no 16 genetic effects from the fallout in Japan. My knowledge is 17 contrary to that. I think it was just a few years after the 18 accident a group of us met with DOE up in -- with its top 19 officials.of DOE and we had with us at that time some of 20 the, they were called radiation victims. We had, and it 21 . will stay in my memory until the day I die, a man who was in 22 the American Army and he went over there two days after the 23 bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. He got sick in his stomach 24 and the Army sent him back -- the United States Army sent 25 him back to this country and within two weeks he was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 1094 l' discharged. A miracle. That doesn't happen often. 2 Now my point is, that he related to us he had four . e-3 children, each one of them had genetic effects. He did not 4 know at the time. The first child I believe was born' blind; '5 the second child was in a wheelchair; the third child was 6 born without any antibiotics -- antibodies in his body to 7 fight any kind of disease that came by; I forget what 8 happened to the fourth child. 9 So I'm saying that my first experience, my own 10. experience refutes his testimony that there are.no genetic 11 damages from fallout. 12 The man himself is dead. 13 I believe also, and I have heard over the years, 14 contradictory scientific evidence, and as has been said this fw,15 evening, it is very selective the evidence and the numbers V 16 that are chosen to go along with GPU's plans. 17 I believe that you should deny the extension of 18 the license, and if you will, send them back to the drawing 19 board. There are other alternatives. And I don't believe 20 that they have explored all of the alternatives. I think 21 they have had a brief -- I was there when the alternatives 22 were presented at one time, and I think there were seven. I 23 remember one of the women she came from somewhere way out 24 West and was talking about the wind tunnels here in '25 Lancaster County, which nobody really k..ows. This past year Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1095 1 has been a very unusual climatic year, as has been said. We 2 had the drought; we had flooding; we had extensive heat; and 3 that is going to go on all scientists tell us. 4 I am saying that there are other scientists with l 5 other opinions that have not been evaluated, I don't think, 6 by GPU. 7 And so for all of those reasons I am saying, I ask 8 you to deny them the extension to the license at this time. 9 Thank you. 10 (Applause) 11 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 12 STATEMENT OF VERA STUCHINSKI 13 MS. STUCHINSKI: My name is Vera Stuchinski, 14 that's S-T-U-C-H-I-N-S-K-I, from Harrisburg. 15 Gentlemen, before I begin, the local elected 16 official who was here to present petitions, that sort of 17 event is impressive. In the last two years at the public 'd Advisory Panel meetings those local officials have shown no 19 interest and have not attended. 20 I hope you' re aware of the fact that GPU has a 21 very extensive road show that they do take around to Borough 22 Council meetings. They have a very good PR department. 23 They have a lot of money. They have paid staff. 24 The people who are here today are not paid by any 25 organization. I should be home working on my students' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 g
1096 1? papers this evening. We are volunteers who are.here not to 2' hype a utility; not as part of our jobs, but because we 3 "truly do believe what we say and we have studied it quite a 4 bit. 5-JUDGE BLOCH: There was a gentleman who spoke 6 earlier this evening and when he finished the lawyer for 7 General Public Utility said the name of the organization he 8 was part of. ,I' spoke to Mr. Baxter and I suggested that if 9 a person wants to identify themselves they can, if they 10 don't want to they don't have to. 11 I feel that it is improper to say that a person 12: who' spoke here should be disbelieved because they may have 13 been spoken to by General Public Utilities, just the same as 14 I believe that~someone should be disbelieved because they r^ 15 are a member of a particular organization. 16 So I.want you to know that I don't accept that 17 kind of argument. The man who spoke, spoke for himself, 18 however he got his information. And I accept him as a human 19 being the same as I do you. - :2 0 ' MS. STUCHINSKI: All right. I just thought I 21 should point out for the record the work that GPU has done 22 on this, the background. 23 I am speaking as Chairperson of Three Mile Island 24 Alert. And my remarks to the Board this evening are 25 directed to the fact that the NRC has enucesed a disposal Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) I
(: L.' 1097 1 option'for the accident generated water that is based on 5-4 2' political and economic motives instead of safety l: b ~ 3-considerations. 4 I speak not only for myself but on behalf of the l 5 members of our. organization and area residents who are 6-outraged at a plan that would have us inhaling and ingesting ~ 7-radioactive waste. 8 The NRC and General Public Utilities may consider 9; this method to be an acceptable alternative, but to area 10 residents it offers no alternative at all. l 11 GPU!and the NRC believe that evaporation fulfills .12 the goal of a safe and expeditious cleanup. However, GPU 13-now' plans to delay the cleanup indefinitely with the NRC's 14 apparent blessing by putting Unit-2 into post defueling 15 monitored storage for an undetermined amount of time. 16 Oddly enoughe the citizens' argument for onsite 17 monitored storage of the tritiated water, which was shot 18 down by the NRC staff, was used by the Commission to justify 19-PDMS. 20 TMIA and the Susquehanna Valley Alliance have 21 argued that carefully monitored onsite storage of the water l ~22 in retrievable containers is a low risk proposition. The 23 natural decrease in radiation and the technological advances 24 that are likely to occur in the near future would provide a 25 safer alternative than immediate evaporation. ( 6 8 4888
I 1098 } IL I quote from the March 1981 Environmental Impact 1 (~/}2 Statement on Decontamination and Disposal of Radioactive { s_ l t 3 Waste to TMI Unit-2, page 7-60: " Tritium is a soft beta 4 emitter which does not constitute a direct radiation source. i 5 It is an internal source of radiation if ingested." It was 6 also noted that beta radiation would not penetrate shipping 7 containers on page 7-61. 8 From the June 1987 EIS on page 7.21 the staff 9 determined that'the consequences of accidents involving the 10 water are slight and present storage practices are within 11 regulatory limits and licensed conditions. 12 The fact is that storage rather than dispersal of 13 the water is feasible and safe. Storage tanks can be 14 designed and constructed so that possible leakage is 15 controlled. Evaporation will release 100 percent of the '16 tritiated water. 17 In the introduction of the April 1988 EIS dealing 18 with PDMS,' post defueling monitored storage, on page 1.1 the 19 NRC staff argued that anticipated advances in 20 decontamination technology are expected to occur within the 21 next 20 years. All the more reason they believe to put 22 Unit-2 in mothballs and continue the cleanup in the future. 23 Why then such a hurry to evaporate the water. 24 The argument that onsite storage is unfeasible is 1 25 a smoke screen for the real issues: political expediency Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 [ i
l i 1099 l 1 and economics. ~ l g It may indeed be more costly for the Utility to q 2 RJ l 3 develop long term safe monitored storage. However, cost is i 4 not a determining factor in meeting the standard of adequate i I 5 protection for health and safety. { 6 As I understand from the U.S. Circuit Court of 7 Appeals in Washington they ruled on August 4th, 1987 that it 1 8 is illegal for the NRC to apply cost factors to decisions 9 about whether a plant meets the adequate safety standard for 10 the protection of public health and safety. I don't know if 11 that has been brought up. 12 GPU attorney Thomas Baxter said in his opening 13 statement, I understand from the paper, that the amount of 14 radioactive mater _ 's released to the air through 15 evaporation would be less than that given off by a color 16 television set. That is rather condescending, I think, to 17 the public. 18 Radioactivity that is inhaled and ingested as the 19 tritiated water would be gives a long term delayed radiation 20 dose. 21 We continue to receive cumulative doses from 22 radioactive emissions. The NRC and GPU constantly assure us 23 the doses are always less than natural background radiation. 24 In the meantime, utilities such as GPU are allowed l 25 to increase the levels of background radiation with l Heritage Reporting Corporation r (202) 628-4888
1100 1 additional emissions. r~ 2 Now these accident generated emissions exceed the b 3 anticipated levels of an operating. plant. .They do place an 4-excess burden on an already strained environment. 5 Massive environmental contamination has been 6 associated with tritium production at the Department of q l 7 Ener@y's Savannah River plant in South Carolina. As a 8 matter of fact, due to the aging reactors and safety 9 problems and contamination at Savannah River tritium for 10 nuclear weapons production has dropped off sharply. I 11 It has been suggested in several different sources 12 that the U.S. facas a lack of tritium crisis in the near 13 future. I am curious why the Department of Energy does not 14-just take the tritiated water off of GPU's hands in that -j15 case. %/ 16 In conclusion, the position of TMI Alert is that '17 the accident gen'erated water must not be evaporated into the 18 atmosphere. Any additional release of radiation to a 19 population that has already been irradiated since Unit-1 i ) 20 began operation in 1974 is unacceptable. 21 The water must be safely retained on site until a 22 better method of disposition is achieved or until its 23 hazardous life is over. 24 (Applause) 25 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 V(~g
1101 1' l 1 STATEM"NT OF JOHN KOVALIC D _ (') 2 MR. KOVALIC: My name is John Kovalic and I'm from V 3 Middletown, Pennsylvania. I just have a few comments to 4 make. i 5 Since the beginnings of Three Mile Island we have 6 always had glowing promises that you can drink the water 7 after it comes out of the condenser, et cetera. And here .8. the other day I heard what I. consider an insult to my s 9 intelligence, evidently, the nuclear community feels that 10 the communities around here are composed of village idiots, 11 that the vaporization of this water would be equivalent of 12 two hours in front of the television tube. 13 But I compare this, vaporization process to a pan 14 of boiling water'. This water.will boil 24 hours a day, 365 _ { ) 15 days a year. It will boil, I presume, on rainy days. It 16 will boil on cold days. Or it will turn into droplets, 11 7 . mist, fog, and wherever the wind takes it and it will run in 18 undiluted form sometimes for miles without dispersing. 19 So some people will be subjected to very high concenF.tions 20 of radiation. 21 It is ridiculous to impose on a community in our 22-area additional radiation amounts given the fact of 23 radiation that I feel comes out of the towers due to leaky 24 tubes. Radiation that comes out of the -- even they use H25 background radiation. But the venting at the cleanup, Heritage Reporting Corporation V(~% (202) 628-4888
(h 1102 1 Inadvertent opening of the sky -- the big door on the top of 2 the reactor without, you know, any warning to the public. 3 The venting of krypton. 4' We have been subjected to radiation for all the 5 years that it has operated. And I feel that even if there q 6 was -- if it was true that only two hours of television 7 radiation would be vented by this evaporation process, to me 8 that's still too much. We have had it. The community, 9 those of us who are a little more perceptive than maybe some i 10 of the witnesses I have heard here today, really just fee) ~ 11 that just common decency would require that they either 12 store it or seal it in some manner that it shouldn't be { 13 imposed'on the public at large. 14 Thank you. i )15 (Applause) 16 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 17 STATEMENT OF PAT BIRNIE. 18 MS. BIRNIE: Hello. My name is Pat Birnie and I' m 19 from Columbia, Maryland and I represent the Maryland Nuclear 20 Safety Coalition. And I would like to speak in opposition
- 21 to the evaporation procedure.
22 We feel that any additional radiation { 23 intentionally put into the atmosphere is not beneficial to 24 the public and that the decisions on how to dispose of this 25 water should not be made on the basis of the economics, what s i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (~)s r.
L i 1 f 1103 1 1 is the cheapest way, and most expeditious way. r~') 2 We feel that the safety of the people, I mean, (J J 3 after all the ASLB is supposed to be concerned about safety 4 as is the NRC. And I think you have an opportunity to help l l 5 restore some very lacking faith in the NRC by ruling not to l l 6 allow evaporation but to ask the experts to go back and j 7 review other methods for taking care of the radioactivity. 8 So much has been said that I would like to say, 9 but it has been said more eloquently, I won't take time. 10 But I would like to suggest that whatever choices are made 11 or decisions are made that I would plea that the public be i 12 not only part of the process of the decision itself, but a 13 part of the monitoring, the continuing process to make sure 14 that whatever decision is made is carried out in the safest (~) 15 way that would help build public confidence. Because I LJ 16 think this is one reason that the public is very upset, is 17 that the public has been excluded in the process of 18 monitoring. 19 Following the TMI accident, as you know, there was 20 a TMI public health fund study. There have been several 21 studies on monitoring needs. It was very deficient 22 monitoring for TMI and most other nuclear power plants. And 23 the Berger Report that came out in December of 1987 detailed I 24 a number of technical and guidelines for monitoring that I l 25 think should be implemented. I think, you know, when you l l Heritage Reporting Corporation /~ (202) 628-4888 V}
1104 1 ask.a study, commission a study to be made it would be 2 profitable to utilize the information, and I think it hasn't .;r 'v 3 .been utilized yet. 4 I would encourage that citizens be involved, as 5 that report recommends, that citizens be, involved in the-6 monitoring as well. 7 There is just so much I would like to say in terms. 8 of lack of confidence about the process and finding very 9 small rules in order to manipulate events. And I think that 10 a lot of the process of the hearings has'been unbecoming of 11 a democratic process where it appears to anyone who is 12 observing that the decision has already been made. I mean, 11 3 why would GPU have already purchased the equipment and have 14 it ready to go if there has been no authorization for that-15 kind of a process to use. And the public perceives that as 16 a decision that has already been made. 17 So I would hope that you could help regain public 18 confidence by your decision. 19 Thank you. 20 (Applause) 21 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank ycu. 22-MS. BIRNIE: On my wal here I followed cars that 23 said, "You have a friend in Pennsylvania."' Well, you have a 24 friend in Maryland, a whole lot of friends. So I just want 25 .you to know you have lots of friends. Heritage Reporting Corpoic ion f (202' 628-4888 1
1105 1 (Applause) i l i 79 2 STATEMENT OF KAY PICKERING. 'w) 3 M3. PICKERING: My name is Kay Pickering. I live 4 in Harrisburg. I work in Harrisburg. 5 At the beginning of my comments I would like to j 6 mention the Time, the front page, and the highlighting 7 article in this week's Time magazine entitled, "The Nuclear 8 Scandal." This is not a nuclear scandal about atom energy 9 plants, but it is about the plants that make weapon systems. 10 And I)think the important thing about the article 11 is the public perception that all across this country over 12 the last few years, and I would say maybe in the last 10 13 years, starting with the Three Mile Island accident, the 14 Chernobyl accident, other mishaps that have occurred, other j l ,e 3 15 accidents, and now the information that is coming out-about l 'uJ 16 the DOE plants. That the public is beginning to have some 17 understanding of what it means to a population to live with 18 uranium. The dangers of the mining and milling of uranium. 19 The side effects. All those words that we don't really know 20 and understand, the cesiums, the iodines, the potassiums, 21 the tritiums, the xenons, what does all of that mean? It's 22 a new science. It's a new age. 23 And I recognize that, as a layperson, I don't know 24 answers. I have to rely on scientists. I went through 25 nurse's training. I have taken care of people who are sick Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1106 1 and who are dying. I have seen people die. I work in the g~ 2 community. I have children of my own. I have gone through a Q)) 3 process of living. And yet, every day I listen to people 4 who suffer, mentally e.nd physically. 5 I work in the office of Three Mile Island Alert 6 and I would like to tell you about the calls I got today. 7 It's a normal day. I'm a volunteer; I am not a paid person. 8 A wife and a mother who called from New York who said her 9 husband has been offered a job in the Harrisburg area, she 10 wants to know about the Three Mile Island plant. Before she 11 called Three Mile Island Alert she called GPU Nuclear, and 12 this is not an unusual call, because most people who call 13 want to get both points of view. So they call the Utility. 14 They call Three Mile Island Alert or, you know, any other en 15 way that they can get information. O 16 This family is coming to the area. They have made 17 an appointment to talk with me. I don't know if they have 18 made an appointment to talk with GPU or with other officials 19 in the area. They want as much information as possible 20 because they' re concerned about the health of their 21 children. 22 Another young woman called today, she is living in 23 New Mexico. At the time of the accident she resided in the 24 Harrisburg area, she and her family stayed in the area. She 25 has since moved to different places. She lived in Denver, Heritage Reporting Corporation rT (202) 628-4888 V
1107 1 she has moved around. She is currently in psychotherapy and (~y 2 she is discovering that the TMI accident apparently had and %) 3 continues to have a significant impact on her mental, 4 physical health, her psychic which affects her every day 5 life. And she is just discovering this. And what she is 6 doing is, she wants to know what did happen at the time of 7 the accident because she doesn't remember those details. 8 She remembers living through it. She remembers her life 9 experience. 10 People who have moved from the area, people who 9 11 have stayed in the area are discovering, not just some of 12 the physical things that they thought that they could deal 13 with, they' re discovering things about their properties. 14 A man called me last week who owns $175,000 home ' 3 15 right across from the plant, has had it for sale for six r'<j 16 years. Has $119,000 equity in it and can't even sell it for l 17 $130,000 and he's irate. He's absolutely irate. And as he 18 is talking to his neighbors they're beginning to be irate 19 about what has happened to them. They believed -- they 20 stayed during the accident, they believed what they were I 21 told. They believed they were not in danger. They had no 22 idea that their property values would go down. 23 And as the years have gone by people have j 24 discovered what that accident has meant to them. How every I 25 day in their lives it affects different things that they Heritage Reporting Corporation /~ (202) 628-4888 b}
1108 1 could never even have perceived. (N 2 And I'm saying to you that evaporation of V 3 tritiated water, none of us sitting here today really knows 4 and understands what the full ramifications may be next 5 year, the year after, and the year after that. 6 A scientist friend of mine called me yesterday, he 7 has been attending that Conference in Washington where the 8 report came out that at least 50 percent of the core was 9 damaged. And he said to me, you know, what that means is 10 that we have to go back and recalculate what really got o u.t. 11 We know that it could be at least 15 percent of noble gases 12 got out. Before we were told one to five percent. And we 13 were assured that that was all that got out. 14 And now we have the documentation to go back and (~) 15 do all those calculations and look at what really got out. tJ 16 How much xenon really got out? What was in the atmosphere 17 at the time? Did it bind -- there's a binding that goes on 18 with certain other elements, did it bind with carbon? Did 19 it bind with carbon dioxide? 20 I don't know the technicalities, but he went on 21 and talked about how in that binding that it can be inhaled 22 anc can affect people's lives. 23 And so I say to you that we don't have the 24 technical expertise at this point in time to really know and 25 understand the effects of tritiated water and whatever else Heritage Reporting Corporation ("T (202) 628-4888 %-) \\
1109 1 may escape during the time of the evaporation. ~ ('~) 2 And I plead with you on behalf of myself and my v_) 3 family and hundreds of others who have signed petitions, not 4 to allow that license amendment for GPU Nuclear. I 5 (Applause) 6 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you. 7 If ycu would like I could have the petition put 8 into the record. 9 MS. PICKERING: Yes, I would appreciate it. 10 JUDGE BLOCH: Why don't we add the petition. 11 (A copy of a petition, with 11 12 pages of signatures, opposing 13 ...any method of disposal of 14 TMI Unit 2 waste water which r involves radioactive releases ()'15 16 to the environment..." was 17 inserted into the record and 18 follows:) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ()') 1
Nuc1G2r R:gulctcry. Commission Cosstissioners: Sech, Rogers, Roberts, Carr & Bernthal /. ~" " ' ' .e :..+ We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission g to-disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to. Oc(NRC) ontaminate Mig environment by evaporating M millten gallons of radioactive waste w h h h ti },3 Island.(I!iL, Unit 3, Into l .th1 atmosohere. We oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. Name Address j, g g 7 $dfa 9EdtV W & hSf*l ,N //c y3 r j' g d'~~y upA y6 &Mk A p,, I,'l'y J h a k' 2 h A w x*v. Goto 71. a a d 2. % s q /?t s' rom 3 T tY/ o> N Nyb* ' Moo OrcAnnGH/6.r /h Ms'DP' .) h4Afn - &/d 4' // p oo/.Sr wo, i .Az b e drug A-i. 7e j y gf_*p .n A!o d J e v.a a /s. Im 9 k'.,u W.L o.i i, s Iuuooa.h. 'PA Ca&4.f.. t ws.$ .') A u.g w u, @ sw 0.6vuwtOt. A.sc.e , m nn.a 3 9-' t* 345 1 -t. w h n c th Conaway Im. Llanclu i m.r.@(w$.a.M % q F. Obh St. Eu da, />A i, o as-5 (o3 % f p ti<IC f "),5 %'d W L} k 0 1 \\\\I ]. D /96'ob C h 'cc,,,ga y,pg/p / /asr c Jacw t 1 Iff okkChlW 0 l y & g_,b & pfy L&,,].hk N O Ya k O k I7 Gl3 f l N2s.A~ ' ID N bCDU b b,aMe(, fQ,.1Td O f $$5Yh /dkf k I AL.k uc %%L)I4h'$, l ..'O /S Y txi-n n m m, t iz, ,,oo l h'IA4.* 'lllw. N 'f.%$'9)kJ{pju ),Qtuf dIwlJua. jf, pp 5 % + 5. % L L. j,g.s y S & b.,,9 -Ah,Mtra v h O$'5" Y0 M O Ae ld\\u 4a s. aaa.a.s . fkmu e; e 1 i. /)la. (*o.we frie/pa t h'. go..( *Jo lle.J ~Y' Afb b38 C k // <t.. /7/// .i ca m.a ,<.v b ram + vr., \\A M f. 'Q,L$g% ') $ '$ U ($ iltLL*W 0cc. I T 10 Lf ~dM%bO D ( b l i y3. brONM N er@ by. c.gM. dpy,3 9/f('](0- / M Tg /AM.u a
1111 Hucicer R gulctcry Commission .Commiccien:rcs Z:ch, Rogars, Roberts, Ccrr & Bernthal .......a. We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1.o disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to ^g contaminate the environment by evaporating 2.3 million gallons of (\\~j radioactive waste water from Three Mile Island (THI) Unit 2 into h atmosphere. We oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to c8tizens. )]ame Address + 2.'P 233 Esww $*r.,HAMtha',fk l2/10 /!!8 j ,,/)) G f e lA e isJL L% d J n yiew r v;w %,<, b G-LJeJ t'^ ' 74 j Qg Q) toil 2g L Nr }^ 'tj/u/ gy so, w w p E @ Yah,143 4. Baa. 54ru 4. (4 b g,ib. f' ad imy. -u.mmonf a.uoe 7 5 ANY N' ik.hnE d j i fp wT4 ~unaua&. 7 ~ y zh sn#Msi4af o. i. ?7? gad d Qade's a, a% m 5, ,pQ f.' /i \\ y'g ,W .y9 0 b u.s k t <. C t., Hb3i P 4 1, s o y su// A M l'%M M gs 'P2ddbcd. M s
- 5. yr L
99non cas u. w Av. Ik% ] W SA k.l*yI**.0lY e g,, q waoterw sr /M a wf ^ Sv1/.L.nwJ/ aHiW i )m I D $ $ W ' ~~ .p*. / 7 // b <; SNL Su/ pt.i 6~Jt'62 WrNM A *A' gj. mt Gwf N "M' O
- 1112 Nuclocr R:gulatory Commission Cosumissioners: Esch, Roger', Roberts, Carr & Bernthal We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
= g (NRC) to disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to contaminate lh_e_ envi onment by evaporating M million callons M h L g radioactive waste water from Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2 [ng ~ the, atmosphere. We oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resupingra ation exposure to citizens.3 M g .g 2m 3,} b l A d',O.js>. $u ~ funn-- k 3') %aa &- !%Gs ,"Ta 5/7//0 s f' dow ha 3/33.M. .0. t 7//o ( > (i. Su bY 1 3 %d s i., fH3, fri 1 ' eb{(""" l } I G % 9 u. W 5 }. O R L, ^3 Qp'/\\} i N @ M o g $ 4 y L [ m p r t l)a. I77 ol U (de .Ilad.k. o '31T3% Mggs J %. e % Ju. M. 0 04 0 h'&Y
- w Y&
/ // 3 0 W W i //g c/ ' M f. t f/ 17/ 03 7'Org ~ 31 dl. EhSGn 243 7( dv[ Of. [. Q ( [7/()$ y. u %, i*%. hqhe ,,0 $VAk. ay 8aLbn0% /1Ld Bat 3 ~) p jQ,A f)%u eni5. ifM be a* w K Ag.q mM3Wru h h {M 7 ajklIh
- 5 6B w B u a. sSua W 3then JJi~uk.yyy cD M 4 SX k. ;74'. irig y
ns ods as., W M9r, A 6.c cW # /Q it u v. ..u. c,+ w .o-o..n a w..e ac issa 0 Yricts yyk'er 20')Y /&p-l(e kl,, Eligebek%,0. /Po
- l 1113 i
Nuc100r R:gulotgry Conuniesion l Commissioners: zech, Rogers, Roberts, Carr & Bernthal i We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to f-contaminate the_ environment gy evaporating M million gallons'pf .f a radioactive waste water from Three Mile Island (TMI), Unit 2 Into j d i lhe atmosphere. j We oppose any method of disposal of THI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. 1 ) . G.sLL. .2 n d w.J. w d M s, % m e g Q f pq & Rf.]Uw&($od<fM19%O
- kl, n,pnLUk 1
,y 4 g % mnp c}d ne nf &$d& lw 3# p w e ~ ~ ac,,, a. y e.g. LR. m hwetau. bs# u. e g g., 67omr g sn - -s n,gra <+ y&k, iw );Lugr & u j. A, iwv Wb uy-a s. Mc it w "* C, M Q P. a of && %dv sos Q c~ Au th soa LQ S H f uu p k t h,64 (75t7 24 Qq Ik n M M, gl.4/sy f4 /th>I l.$wre.%. at 9(4 6 b pgd.hk M h*NM4 Q wu w s w u i n n,,, OtVW ] M E 0 5 / 8 22 0 0 t / f) /; 7 c / h O A 4 $ w' ky wm 4s % M vgis,g/U 4 facaf 3x CweedY ///may /Jid ip.s,gg ~ )L WCmxrM 30/N.PDGKESS MEbPTs9 // I'n//to9
'^1114 Nuctsar Regulatory Commission commissioners zech, Rogers, Roberts, Carr & Bernthal We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [1 (NRC) to disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to 3 contaminate lhg environment by evaporating 2.3 million callons of ~ radioactive waste water from ThWi,r Mile Isl E d M Unit 2 InE 1he, atmosphere. t We oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. l Narna. Act),e s s + z & i d J.qm[Lb %g nau l q d,, 4. d ' f FN d-4,;F A AY7W8 L d'. / Lum /L.nwa ,-i n c q d'. R e _ f G q qi $w M yio A..a.d2, Jc357 i*"e lQ&W VE/.3 $% 9 k.,6Ef /$/ 7/// ,?/ k 0 W ' ' l20 & & be D<Nhk 4. tog A5pmo"7 1% lii)IcQ tome wocd >n' W IW Yl'Y' uWA kW i20 kl A ' Q'*Ay,,Q.y ne g39 4% & 4/. 'Fl 'S ,f % ^ n l u /% f he.I70 'I* f gsAE - ?J'C ( m' ' ' /J1 &n Coaxos Texas 77304- /,/f/ as m &bd4lhal fli7m y 4'- dua // W h ~~1dmL f,,w '}Y,Ltyck -- -- Go on< ab yoAM,f6 /7370 yz4 ft // S'. /6'* Sr 61mic' /dN. f?4. Tamthy D<amiv' WA 00x.@lo lr'li.mOfM, O /703b & g%g i098~l~ A d/) Mth,,L. (, k b M g n.x - c.opn ,a spg o n 't P L-ci,l'JL 'i 9 Mt Cun.huW.00. id'Jb& ' ' T M k-Ih-7h"% 7A
c .wa 1115 Nuc1ccr' R"gulattry Comunicalen ~' Commissioners sech, Rogers, Roberts, Carr & Bernthal ...., a e. We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to O.~'.(NRC) contaminate ibg environment gy evaporating 2_._3 million es11ons,o_[ radioactive gggig ggggg {,ggg I,hggg Mi,13 Island (TMI) ,y,n,,Lt, J, J,,n,,1g i n th,g atmosphere. . We-oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases.to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. \\N @ p dLM4 dt., T6.Ms + 5 $ 6 $) M
- N h hbin'0 A
/Oso Eull.c.4bh g((. /Jo ltl / ?/ C l ^ 3 (,. Pv,.g 1 no l'9 H36 Coelg 65 4. Hi,,9 9A 11/y 37 'lu u s rt.o s t.uf k kc Pa
- H o s-3 N /Wa*Q$/.
wa. J$T Emchiw fr, Hrg., /A niia.
- ' dekawj N
%,'An D &.qN,h,If.. na s ) w TC* M 61,/, /12/ %, 3 r y, b,/ 4.L p.n 97 A m n y, N m,. n l b,ja Y' 3?( MLaAdm n ,7,,3 Y2.' c.s a,;,, b $ 91 %n., k, /,/C Qi7 icy 3.> d c.d ow e A rt * % ff A 7.M hy' WA 10I k %4 bvM}htn'r h o:- > d b.' [ inaa_ l C IOW/ y IN Sl. , r/) ritorf lV0/ $ Oki'GAuf S N4Unin< j)' 17ie <t V43/ & jf y ~ p, 7,, $2'm 4'O A 'lVerr/A$ '?y) (.fs.te,4
- ' M % -
4y3 J. 4%/ # ov.2.msw _A 7 .f ft. de = - ,,/ ,, u, L1 C2w. C /Q R, a yo,i ^d'ed
- d,,,
'Dr 4 '7rySr..crmrar,pp,,,,,, Sb lmnn
- Gror,sn is.i> % aan,ea yg fyj,~,,,,,
k fh 96'// A 4 & A / h [ A l'f/0 f W g,, & (obin4 hRNbL> QR. 6 fA l'8 Il'L M sfu g. y}&Q -1c7 s f J4./-Ad/p, l'?IU eo.%,c nas-- i,iw r1%v% dm ',$W'Q h' Y/0 .$T ~ a hw '# ' r n a ,,n. ex g itspl % g s.e St brugt* hbpy10.h)) lad'~ \\(d\\ Tbwnp.scH ~5Y IkWS&P] s ____m_____
1 5116 L Nuclo:r R gulatery Commicsion r -Cosmiccigners:. 3:ch, Rogaro, Roberts, Carr & Bernthal i ...---..,.a.u. We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC ). to disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to r'g : contaminate thg environment by evaporating 2, ) m..ll:.on callona pf, f Q radioactive 33311 y,31.g,I from Th,Lgg MJ,lg Island f i g,Jt,3, j,nto h n l 1hg atmosphert. Wo. oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. Abes+2; o i swte )T$rm'#< " A 2 0 **/ I"' /"' O W'W' "l g3,, 4 p ::dJrsu.n.wo9 4 s k$$ {lM7 hiOb M/ er '7 W t
- ' c fi<uhum ' 5 I3Ilaf
~ G.,c yt-o QD'y' eves VII<ys QI7%cr -t/IYd0p l . ;9 d%% %~ ~Lo g i ~ 10 N W Sao &sedd 4 ka r7Ho O Ny S'N/0 { 71 /a7MI ~3 " r /A g.ncy, niu A.-#..,,,, w'. b' ' 7: O' N
- '^
'I' 66 S$f* O' ' 6 { ' %.&f +M~j%<-%w,Gt.. no a 7 7,AW 4%M %A P . w ;,. c9wC toe e.owaFow sto. eenistou. en t.im,' 1/3DYtGMdt% bnhMmA 4M-kuner ed yltq 70s 17:11 tagak{ mart yss Haunt b &, N n"/ i 1 3f) pd G>4h W~ - gnh)/ u , gg. ty E. oow A m m ecg g, apaA v Hs.s4 p,, e 9 h O
5 " L, 1117 Nuc10er R39ulatcry Comunission Cosmiccicners: 5 ch, Rog3ro, Roberts, Carr & Bernthal ..._..,.o We,- the undersigned, urge the. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission '(NRC) to disapprove Gs.'eral Public Utilities (GPU) request to lc contaminate,Qg environnes.6, by evaporating M m,111on as11ons off, red;.oactive 333 ih.g atmosphere.13 galgt upp h tL1,lg IgityJ f E y,[1111,{,n,1q ) 1 We oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the -resulting radiation exposure to citizens. h' A)),eu * *Z.j 1 p ?%
- "(
- p-ye7a.d T M U N $' A 't
r g9gg .u-c n.. t,.,, ~~."c., iti,'. dai. lex. llSV JI'$f E**N #I' ' c,, g snL > 7o s 4ua.. >/% M y. P4. i rie o 1 Lea. / w,hab.+. sig 'CL. tyiet. .p 8.Cyse. A no % A'Rt k n7 y, stt <.w . G). L, pat 17oyo
- r. &&
~ cra
- v. %
u6s wr' g& ?v 4p .,,9 f g M W K so.,is.st $u p(,. P. i i,o \\ " L & k'e Om k u ,,. y g,,,'i A# s %e,y,g' /7o/c .,.j_%'g #=. M b g en ncn/ q /1 9 1 %, 1 ). $ M L i7,,, L 's /d3 &/$ X. /7ll' . / 7055~ ,7 y p cw.n
- u. pe. R""'
u Q.. : m tv /.34.4 G*--y> W PA Ih, y 1 ds,d. 197,4,@ , 2, / 7/W 19> s# j ine& OY 7 ca. ni v
- n. i n-,
,s..- 92, w: #se n &11 R,Wp s, s%dn M I?q3 05 car Lefkt d%; wh y 75r( (.y.Jte c1. A<. h. I h 4 ' g, sos.rp w W u.ilh(.?* t 'r!
- 1
'X5 15 % 3 % Gh PA I7D' i g, G. W W t W TII~ l70 #' g y Mr& Rtw W kB %.p % i40% % H* WSWOh TT5 tJ s#g Mg h NW .a g
j suc1ccr R2gulctory Commission 111g commicsicnars: Esch, Rogsrs, Roberts, Carr & Bernth31 .c ) We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (HRC) t o, disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to contaminate thg environment p,y evaporating 2.3 million callons p,f, ~ radioactive waste water from Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2 Intc* ._ ("] thg a tmosphere. D We oppose any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. t' p,,,,, b /[s,aTwr t. /ddedu,5_ ] ~ f>.< I u a.,. /* 17inna n~ T ~'= " ~ '~ ' ' " " [u9L rs t-0-Q &I'IBria retifM - k '7th I % (, w ap e msw w. pg'[,y
- 5 WY t 70 n 'R 1 a y
,:; 2 n " 1 c % ^,l ; 7- - u.,u w s.a.,- ",& ^ ,m Q ~[gg j{cyd 'Iid60.is IAI N. ' N0bl f ty' lllll gg, cas.s i.crn5r -Je= - bad sei M s, W .u
- p as m ik,,imi v,
fay Ab " 8 K/w u u M >cr, A4 17 osg,. Gw*/.,N } &lY, q wie O*"d'! } &~ p 4,4 i,io,< g g ase djgi % e +bc.an>yj~>n,nn m G.4 & u z. m. m> n p}. sa.- w ,xu w ww n no mm d an>ek is-Dt6eu.b % ni,t 3 Y A N W3i d 5, k./7/d/ 9 7 S
- r 492)SkaM, k. S i,,o,
( Rk ifw w a51Aac1 k Nb A 17/10 a w r, ,i V w m del Jt., Mhgt.imol' i f Y $ h N', b5 $
Nuclocr R:gulctory Commission Commicsicn:rcs Z:ch, Rog3rs, Roberts, C:rr & Bernthal .--....~.aa.,- We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Retjjulatory Commission (NRC) to disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to contaminate Qg environment b,y evaporating 2.3 millnon asilons pl radioactive g water f rom Three h Isle iTt!L Unit 2 Into t.h,3 atmosohere. ] We oppose.any method of disposal of TMI Unit 2 waste water which involves radioactive releases to the environment, and the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. j f jejet v -b303 upwlsaA be bhetl%,N.*'NYE
- p. 2$vad & 77g Afpme/Ela'%> $bkMF in.,n J4m un. wr c; A,a,yn M. ;7h.,% iw s 4,
N .3ag Qw -K $% N eu we WW
- 2 3 U dtt4 %'ralStrrd hnmib.
N ! ? tic, i k-A s t w h\\ W-s frm l A l G TL C ds 7b M N y N ha rm Ji' 8 mf,p l /b~C Y M N 'I N AS 1$ , tct Mu nen 5 c, y.<anim. p, j74, e I" b-b8 ~ Id L.g p ',f 'ht W 3rr7 '3 M % + L r-w i te a,. ,.g,,, I4 f loci d fa %.i fL ;t 3 o v o a # 41L 14L 17ll0 l'$ & $, k plk w ] %.N 5b- . Illok h Md4 =n *pw, . Ag i v, 7"?YQt'wi,2.g.,p,g4g$~ ff- ' L /m IMjlf.Hg g t,c~~oe61,,n,,.,m,,n. c, y,.A) w y % wt /A O f-gt4 rt0, tvWI.ttrY" cs %46, f g (ph LWon .\\t.' IUskf W ^Hs-TV!) Ins 9pi,,j G W Ms #44 ~L # /L /7ni a a v a,a e- , n q ee i ?n C &AAdh. Wyg./ror7 20 I
NuclCCr R:gulctcry Commission ,-Commis icners: Z:ch, Rtg3rs, Roberts, Cctr & Barnthal .,-a We, the undersigned, urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to disapprove General Public Utilities (GPU) request to contaminate ih,g environment b_y evsporatina 2.3 million callons pg radioactive waste wit,gy. from Three Mile IslaIId.{Ti_lj, Unit 2,, Into ( m 1h3 atmosphere.,- We oppose an method of disposal of THI Unit 2 waste water whichinvolvesradfonctivereleasestotheenvironment, and "the resulting radiation exposure to citizens. - j, f $nNX b. DAVi $ ' ~Ne b (20 S'y n
- 2...n Aku in u 9 M f-5.q:(.N N.
S' ~3 Al & M, /A* rla b y /7/s / y c1 G - ? 9 % A * ' - 3 0 " P % M*" - p l g & &. u- /E%E EM N' /f N I 6 he /M '? 'H bT~0 ' M' 7,~Regod Secus '34 to C L~MM 05 tk^ M p. sacn dou a. A g nd ' w a w Sodr%. q s-N R arp v Il}e, Pa.m y-nch4 I /d. 46,c St. n *h
- '^"'
enff y ,nneFwr $ mj'u %ud dM nasww ww Apu. Pv4 (emetw ; %c4 And WSt @ %d (Mq deiam %%.y. awa l +w~ we w. o.Q 2 a1/'ff ),&- (J/5 0 9 l
- l..
l
- _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - = _ - _ _ _ _ l' 1121 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Are there.any more speakers? 4 (3 2 J (No response). D' 3 -- JUDGE BLOCH: There being none, I would like to l-4 thank'-everyone for their participation this evening and this' I -5 meeting is adjourned. 1 L 6 (Whereupon, at 9:30 p.m. the public hearing.was ~ 7 adjourned.) I .g 1 9 10 11 .12 '13 l' 4 - 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .e 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 c )
1 CERTIFICATE O 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings be' fore the 4 United' States Nuclear Regulatory-Commission in the matter 5 of: GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al (THREE MILE LSLAND, UNIT 2) 6 Nams: LICENSE AMMENDMENT APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRESENTATION OF LIMITED 7-APPEARANCE STATEMENTS 8 Docket Number: 50-320 9 Place: Lancaster, Pennsylvania 10 Date: November 3, 1988 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the O 15 air ceioa or en court r gore 1#9 co=9 av, ae ta e the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings. 18 /s/ Oh i M 19 (Signature typed) : JOAN ROSE 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation -22 23 24 1 25 l [V3 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j _}}