ML20237B620

Comment on License Renewal Process for Plant.Opposes Idea of re-licensing Unless Review Includes Careful Consideration of Likelihood of Natl nuclear-waste Repository That Is Safe for Future Generations

ML20237B620
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	07/28/1998
From:	Ebenreck S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-63FR31813 63FR31813-00002, 63FR31813-2, NUDOCS 9808190109
Download: ML20237B620 (4)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

psn DM 3mf g/ [ t IUj7e /f /fty cMW (

I SflRA.5BEKREpi 3451 Sixes'R6ad' C Prince Frederick, MD g

. 78 1 (FM 83-f0d4 A!! 10: I

'/~

1 1 F,ULES d LM. E al July 28,1998 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Mailstop T-6 D 59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 This letter is written in comment on the License Renewal Process for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby, Maryland. I am a citizen of Calvert County and have lived for 20 years with my family just within the 10-mile radius of that plant. I also teach envimamental ethics at the college level and have been thinking about the ethical issues .

n: lated to nuclear and other energy uses for some time.

At the public hearing on July 9,1998, I think the positive reasons for re-licensing were clear.

They include economic benefits, the public-spiritedness of the plant employees, the generally good safety record of plant operation, and the positive air impacts of energy production without air pollution. I wotdd note that the latter two points seem clearly related to the consideration of re-licensing. While the first two points am good reasons to appreciate the people who operate the plant I assume they are basically irrelevant to your safety and environmental impact review.

In response to the NRC desim to know what citizens think should be considered in the environmental impact statement, I make the following observations:

(1) To rile out consideration of the environmental impacts of long-term nuclear-waste storace because it is not an issue specific to this plant is obviously to rule out this issue n the review of any and all nuclear-plant licenses. Thus, msponsibility for the {

impacts of these wastes is detached fmm the choice to go on pmaucing thcm. If this i is thougtt of as a technical decision, I understand why the NRC would want to limit what can a reviewed, so the decision can be made in a reasonable time. But as an ethicist, I tunk that detaching the responsibility for waste from the decision to preduce mom is irmsponsible. On that ground I oppose x-licensing unless the n: view includes careful consideration of the likelihood of a national nuclear-waste repository that is safe for future generations to continue to operate for the life-span of those wastes.

(2) Because Ccivert Cliffs is already storing more nuclear wastes than originally i!

l envisioned, it seems to me that re-licensing this plant when no safe national storage di center is yet in sight, is to ask citizens to live with higher risks fmm that on-site j storage. I ask that your review clearly consider and infomi us of any safety risks, should it turn out that all the additional wastes end up needing on-going storage at this site. Without this information, I can't aupport re-licensing.

[

d, gD - continued on back --

9008190109 900720 4 PDR ADOCK 05000317 P PDR 4

m.

)ook ut (1 sue 16) http//www.altemativemedicine.com/digeWissue1Wil6 e94.ddml

[ Home }i l interactive index ] jj [ Books ] ll Subscriptions] [ [ Digassion Areo ]'jjijlij!!!!)ijjjjjjjll$j*M*s*i0i35l

.@.... .. . .. .m .,,.....,

....ealthCenterh ..... .jggg;g;gjg;ggiggg

(.,,.....

Proilucts ..,.j g.ggg.gjg.g..3;gy.;g .ggg g; .g. ggggg.g;g.g.g;gggjg.gg.;gg.;.;gg; gigig;g.;gggggggggngig;ggjgggggggg;gggggi; g.gi; g ;g;.;g IGo to the Table of Contents 1 Book Report The Boldest of the New Bocks of hItemative Medicine Nuclear Radiation and Cancer Compromised Immunity and Breast Cancer Since the first atomic bomb explosion in Ne.v Mexico in 1945 and the advent of nuclear " power," nearly all of the continenta! United States has b3en irradiated by nuclear fallout.IgslaydJ21 of the total 3,053 counties injej).S. are nuclear counties, meani.ng.the risTde5ts'lisiszittii5300 milfs.of aleactor, in other words, more than 33% of those living in the continental U.S. are regularly .

~

~~ ~

)xppsMg]@l{ar.radidon.,These reskleilts suffer hidher tfiairssrage rates of breast cancer, AIDS, and other immune deficiencies, and, among infants, premature births, low birth weights, reduced intelligence, and depressed thyroids.

A former empl,oyee olthe_ Environmental Protectbn Agency, Jaypl. Gould liases his conclusions on meticulous research he compiled from data from, the National Cancer institute, state health departmer/s, and the Centers for Disease Control. This data reveals that more thar.1.5 million American women have died of breast cancer since the start of the " nuclear age"whereas prior to 1945, the rate of breast cancer incidence was acttally declining.

The exposure of an entire generation-Baby Boomars born between 1945 and 1965, the height of nuclear testing-to man-made f:ssion products has led to an unprecedented increase in illness, says Gould. The toxic situation is even worse in heavy rainfall areas-East coast,~Grea[Gkes, the Northwest-vihere s iiucis3i7sdi5 tion combiiid5Yvilii6hiritic~a~l pesticidesjnc(ustrial, pollutants, and

'othe~r environmentaltoxiris inTairiTThiidea~dly amalgim entsrs sUiface watef"

' reservoirs 7public drinkini watsi ind thus the human body faster.

That the New York metropolitan area (including Long Island and southern Connecticut) has the country's greatest concentration of breast cancer mortality is directly attributs.ble to its proximity to 4 nuclear facilities (inc.'uding Brookhaven National Laboratory) and the deadly confluence of environmental factors cited above, says Gould. Here the breast cancer death rates are as high )

as 32 per 100,000 compared to 28 in the irradiated Northeast, an average 25.8 I i for nuclear counties, and 22 in nonnuclear counties. "This means that in the i

' nuclear' counties for every 100,000 women, there are nearl/ 4 more deaths l

today than in nonnuclear counties-an extraordinarily significant difference,"

Gould says, j j of 2 7/10/9811:55 PM I

l l

ok Rtort (hsue 16) http://www.altemativemedicine.com' digest / issue 16/il6 a94.shtml j;

Gould marshals a huge body of health statistics to prove conclusively that those who live in proximity to active nuclear power stations or research facilities ]

(which release radioactive gases, toxic liquid, and solid wastes) have far higher rates of disease than those who do not. The 1,321 nuclear counties account for -

more than 50% of all breast cancer deaths, says Gould..He,also notes that thei M counties that house the 7 oldest nuclear reactors (mair'ita'iisii by the ,

DepisejitT)( Fle^r~g~y) hidi37ff irideajidiri bfeast cancir"diathd between ,

1950 and 1989, compared to only 1% for all of the U.S.- ,,

Gould's research demonstrates convincingly that negative health effects such as breast cancer mortality are directly related to residential proximity to nuclear radiation. There has been an "overall decline in the health of all age-groups,"

says Gould, and this cannot be explained without "taking into consideration the great environmental changes" produced by the use of nuclear power. The true cost of winning World War 11 with nuclear power, says Gould, has been "an uncontrollable epidemic rise in radiation-induced illnesses and in the costs of medical care."

For example, not many people know that in 1945, the Hanford nuclear weapons facility in Washington State accidentally released an amount of radioactive iodine into the U.S. atmosphere equivalent to the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As a result,150 million Americans were exposed to the fallout of the nuclear cloud as it drifted across the country.

Since 1945,184 atmospheric nuclear bombs have been detonated over Nevada, a fire power equal to 15,000 Hiroshima bombs; clouds containing {

nuclear fallout from these explosions have drifted over nearly all of the I continental U.S. Combined fallout from all above-ground nuclear testing by the l U.S. and the former U.S.S.R. is estimated to be equivalent to 40,000 Hiroshima bombs.

"The true health effects of ingesting man-made fission products have been withheld from the public for nearly half a century," says Gould. He criticizes t mainstream media for ignoring the current large number of class action suits by vict;ms of radiation releases againt,t nuclear facilities. Gould also lambasts the National Cancer Institute's myopic (or willful) distortion of the data in their 1990 report that failed to find any convincing links between radiation exposure and cancer.

"We must press for an end to the production of nuclear weapons and operation of nuclear reactors which destroy the health and economic future of our nadon,"

urges Gould. I SOURCE-Jay M. Gould. The Enemy Within: The High Cost of LMng Near Nuclear Reactors (1996), Four Walls Eight Windows, 39 West 14th Street, Suite 503, New York, NY 10011.

5k .

., . f i

t

{2 7/10/9812:55 PM i

I