0001 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2 PUBLIC HEARING THE NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY 3 RESPONSE PLAN FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 4 - - - 5 6 7 - - - July 1, 2009 8 - - - 9 Public hearing held at the Salem 10 County Courthouse, 92 Market Street, Salem, New 11 Jersey 08079, commencing at 7:00 p.m., on the 12 above date, before Joseph P. Dromgoole, a 13 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in the 14 State of New Jersey. 15 - - - 16 17 18 19 CLASS ACT REPORTING AGENCY, LLC Registered Professional Reporters 20 1420 Walnut Street, St. 1200 133H Gaither Drive 21 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 22 (215) 928-9760 (856) 235-5108 23 24 0002 1 MR. DEPIERRO: Good evening, 2 everyone. My name is Nick DePierro. And I 3 am the Supervisor of the Nuclear Emergency 4 Preparedness Section within the New Jersey 5 Department of Environmental Protection. I 6 will be the Hearing Officer this evening. 7 The purpose of this hearing is to give 8 testimony, comments, and questions regarding 9 the adequacy and effectiveness of the New 10 Jersey Radiological Emergency Response Plan 11 for Nuclear Power Plants. In order that this 12 hearing may be properly documented, these 13 proceedings are being recorded by a certified 14 shorthand court reporter. 15 Everyone attending this meeting 16 is asked to sign the attendance sheets, and 17 they're by the door, before leaving. The 18 attendance sheets for these hearings are used 19 to update the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering's 20 public hearing mailing list. 21 Public notice of the hearing 22 was published in the New Jersey Register on 23 May 18th and June 1st of 2009. In addition, 24 the public notice was published in the Salem 0003 1 Sunbeam from June 24th through June 30th, 2 2009. Copies of the public notice for the 3 three hearings were mailed in June to all the 4 persons who attended last year's hearings. 5 There's also copies on the table up front 6 here. 7 This hearing will proceed as 8 follows: I will provide a brief background 9 on why we are conducting the hearing and then 10 I will introduce the panel members and ask 11 them to briefly describe the role of their 12 organization in nuclear emergency 13 preparedness and response. Finally, I will 14 open the hearing for comments and questions 15 from the public. 16 The New Jersey Radiation 17 Accident Response Act requires the Department 18 of Environmental Protection, in cooperation 19 with the New Jersey Division of State Police, 20 to conduct public hearings to take comment 21 on, and to address questions relevant to, the 22 adequacy and effectiveness of the New Jersey 23 Radiological Emergency Response Plan. 24 These public hearings are held 0004 1 annually in each of the three counties 2 affected by the plan; Ocean County for the 3 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 4 Salem and Cumberland Counties for the Salem 5 Unit 1, Salem Unit 2, and Hope Creek Nuclear 6 Generating Stations. We are here tonight to 7 listen to your questions and comments on New 8 Jersey's nuclear emergency response plans. 9 Comments on more general nuclear power issues 10 or issues that relate to licensing and 11 regulatory matters at nuclear power plants 12 are not within the purview of this meeting 13 and hence are not appropriate, and will not 14 be addressed. 15 The purpose of the plan is to 16 coordinate and implement an immediate and 17 comprehensive response at the state, county, 18 and municipal levels to a radiological 19 emergency associated with any nuclear power 20 plant affecting the State of New Jersey. 21 Copies of the plan are available for public 22 inspection at the Salem County Emergency 23 Management Office in Mannington Township, the 24 Cumberland County Office of Emergency 0005 1 Management in Bridgeton, the Ocean County 2 Office of Emergency Management in Berkeley 3 Township, the New Jersey Office of Emergency 4 Management in West Trenton, and the public 5 libraries in Salem, Cumberland, and Ocean 6 Counties. We also have a copy on the table 7 here. 8 Now I would like to introduce 9 the members of the panel. To my right is 10 Lieutenant Richard Sensi and Mr. Jon 11 Christiansen representing the New Jersey 12 Division of State Police. Lieutenant Sensi 13 is the Supervisor of the Radiological 14 Emergency Response Planning and Technical 15 Unit, and Mr. Christiansen is an Executive 16 Assistant in the Radiological Emergency 17 Response Planning and Technical Unit. To my 18 left is Mr. Patrick Mulligan. He's 19 representing the New Jersey Department of 20 Enviromental Protection. Mr. Mulligan is the 21 Manager of the DEP's Bureau of Nuclear 22 Engineering. And to Pat's left is Mr. Jeff 23 Winegar, and he's representing the New Jersey 24 Department of Health and Senior Services. 0006 1 Mr. Winegar is a Response Coordinator in the 2 Department's Operations Program for Emergency 3 Preparedness and Response. If any questions 4 arise involving the responsibility of the 5 Department of Health and Senior Services, 6 we'll call on Jeff for a response. 7 Now I would like to ask 8 Lieutenant Sensi to briefly describe the role 9 of the State Police in the plan. 10 LIEUTENANT SENSI: Thank you. 11 For the record, I'm Lieutenant Richard 12 Sensi. I'm representing the State Office of 13 Emergency Management within the Division of 14 State Police. Our office, as you may know, 15 has the responsibility for administering and 16 implementing the radiological emergency 17 response plan for incidents at the power 18 plants in New Jersey. In addition to 19 preparation of the radiological emergency 20 plan, the New Jersey State Police is the lead 21 agency in the following functional areas; 22 notification and communication, command and 23 coordination, protective actions, which 24 include evacuation, shelter and place, access 0007 1 control, food, water, and milk control, and 2 parallel actions that include traffic 3 control, decontamination, exposure control, 4 mass care, law enforcement, fire control, 5 public health, reentry, return and recovery. 6 I'd also like to introduce John 7 Christiansen sitting up here with me. He's 8 the lead planner. We have Alan Smith who's 9 the site planner for Salem/Hope Creek. And 10 we also have Sergeant Brian Everham here. 11 He's the south region representative to the 12 Salem County Office of Emergency Management. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. DEPIERRO: Okay. Now 15 Mr. Mulligan will briefly describe the role 16 of the Department of Enviromental Protection 17 and Plan. 18 MR. MULLIGAN: Good evening. 19 My name is Pat Mulligan, and I'm the Manager 20 of the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering. And 21 I'm going to briefly discuss the role of the 22 Department of Enviromental Protection in New 23 Jersey's Radiological Emergency Response 24 Plan. 0008 1 The New Jersey Radiological 2 Emergency Response Plan includes the plan, 3 standard operating procedures and annexes. 4 The plan identifies all responsible state 5 agencies and outlines their specific roles in 6 the event of a nuclear emergency. It is 7 based on five primary functions that outline 8 the actions to be performed in the event of a 9 radiological emergency at any one of the four 10 nuclear power plants located in the state or 11 in neighboring states. Those actions are 12 notification and communication; accident 13 assessment; command and coordination; 14 protective actions; and parallel actions. 15 Since agency roles and 16 responsibilities don't change often, the plan 17 essentially does not change. The Standard 18 Operating Procedures are specific 19 instructions and guidelines used by each 20 agency when performing their specific 21 duties. Procedures are reviewed and tested 22 annually, and revised whenever necessary in 23 order to enhance emergency response. The 24 Annexes, A and B, are the Radiological 0009 1 Emergency Response Plans for Salem/Hope Creek 2 and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Sites. 3 Respectively, each annex describes the 4 planning basis and concept of operations for 5 each of the municipalities located within the 6 ten-mile Emergency Planning Zones. 7 Under the New Jersey Radiation 8 Accident Response Act, the Department of 9 Environmental Protection has the lead role in 10 Accident Assessment and control of food, 11 water, and milk following an incident. 12 Accident Assessment involves two separate 13 analyses, an engineering analysis as the 14 event at the plant unfolds, and an analysis 15 of the amount of radiation to which the 16 public may be exposed in the event of a 17 release. 18 Depending upon the severity of 19 the event, the Department provides Protective 20 Action Recommendations to the Governor, who 21 will make a final decision on actions to be 22 implemented to protect health and safety. 23 Protective Action Recommendations for the 24 public may include administration of 0010 1 potassium iodide, evacuation, sheltering, and 2 access control within the affected, or 3 potentially affected areas. The Act also 4 specifies that the Department develop and 5 implement a comprehensive monitoring strategy 6 that includes the daily monitoring levels of 7 radioactivity in the environment. The 8 Department also provides public health and 9 safety, and technical guidance with respect 10 to the preparation and implementation of the 11 Plan. The Department's final responsibility 12 under the Act is to conduct, in cooperation 13 with the State Police, public hearings 14 annually in each designated county to 15 determine the adequacy and effectiveness of 16 the Plan. 17 Members of my staff who are 18 here from the Department of Enviromental 19 Protection include Mr. Tom Clasnic, who's an 20 engineer for the environmental section, 21 Ms. Anne Foth who's the supervisor of the 22 nuclear threat response section, overseas our 23 crest system, Mr. Jerry Humphries, who's an 24 engineer in our engineering section. Thank 0011 1 you. Carol Shepherd, I'm sorry, Carol 2 Shepherd is also here. She's from our 3 Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Section. 4 MR. DEPIERRO: Thanks, Pat. 5 Now we will proceed with the public's 6 questions and comments. Those individuals 7 who wish to speak should complete a speaker 8 registration card, one of these here, and 9 hand it to Carol. We will call the speakers' 10 names in the same order as we received the 11 registration cards. Please be certain to 12 clearly print your name and address on the 13 registration card so that we may contact you 14 if we need to respond to comments and 15 questions more fully in writing. When I call 16 your name, please come forward, the 17 microphone -- we won't have a microphone. 18 It's a small enough room. You can come 19 forward. If you want to pull a chair and 20 feel more comfortable sitting you're welcome 21 to do that. State your name and spell your 22 name. Speakers will be limited to five 23 minutes. We would also like you to face the 24 panel that you're directing the questions 0012 1 to. Each speaker will have approximately 2 five minutes and if time still remains after 3 everyone has spoken, we will invite 4 additional comments from individuals who have 5 already spoken or wish to speak. In fairness 6 to the speaker and in order that we can make 7 the best use of this time, I ask your 8 cooperation in not calling out. Comments 9 from the audience are counterproductive and 10 we appreciate no calling out or anything like 11 that. 12 So now we will proceed and the 13 first speaker that we have here is Ms. Freda 14 Berryhill. Do you want to come forward? 15 MS. BERRYHILL: I've been 16 coming here, what, ten, 15 years? I mean I 17 was not surprised that I was recognized this 18 morning when I walked in (indicating). And I 19 would like to say something first that is 20 really quite commendable, when I first came 21 the room was filled with people. They all 22 had monumental questions. Over the years the 23 crowd, as you know, dwindled. You answered 24 all the questions to their satisfaction. 0013 1 People know in New Jersey if there is an 2 emergency, they know what to do, unlike 3 Delaware. We have 20 -- more than 20,000 4 people, 24,000 living in the A, B, C, within 5 those parameters, and we do not have 6 hearings. I think that's a real shame. And 7 I'm taking a lot of literature home with me 8 and I'm hitting the legislators as soon as I 9 get back, because I'm particularly upset 10 today. I'm very upset. I have said this 11 before the NRC. I have said this before PSEG 12 and about three weeks ago I have said this 13 before the Delaware legislator when the House 14 Energy Committee invited me to come, because 15 PSEG was coming over to talk to them. And 16 I'm going to say it again. I've said it ever 17 since the plan started and now I want to make 18 it very clear so that you know, too. I 19 attended every hearing before the plant was 20 licensed. We had no computers then. I had 21 to go to the document room and look at it. 22 Many times I had to travel to Washington to 23 get the information I wanted. But the most 24 horrendous thing I have discovered, that this 0014 1 plant were built on an artificial island so 2 named because there was nothing but water 3 there. The island was built with dredgings 4 from the Delaware River. And on this pile of 5 mud we put three nuclear reactors. There is 6 no rock bottom. The drilling went down to 7 100 feet. There was no rock bottom 8 discovered. The pilings they built into the 9 mud on which this complex sits go only 75 10 feet into the mud. The description was 35 11 feet of mud and sand, the next 35 feet gravel 12 and sand, the next 35 feet is called 13 Vincentown Formation. You look it up on the 14 computer. It's nothing but more mud and 15 sand. Additional drillings to 100 feet 16 discovered no rock bottom. Don't let anybody 17 tell you unless you go into the document room 18 and look at it. And on this complex we put 19 three nuclear reactors and talking of a 20 fourth. It's absolutely unconscionable. Now 21 about a month ago we had an earthquake in 22 Morris County. I didn't get too upset 23 because it's northern Jersey, it's far away, 24 but this morning people were jolted as -- I 0015 1 turned on the talk program in Delaware this 2 morning, people called in. We thought it was 3 an explosion. There's a fault going in the 4 middle of the Delaware River. I think we're 5 in for a disaster. To talk about building a 6 fourth reactor is just unconscionable. They 7 ought to be shut down and cleaned up. A 8 diaster here within 35 miles? We got two 9 reactors at Limerick, from Wilmington I'm 10 speaking, and two reactors at Peach Bottom. 11 If this island goes, liquefaction, if you 12 know what that is. Liquefaction is a world- 13 wide phenomena, well known when there is no 14 rock. The mud turns to jello and -- and 15 buildings topple. We have seen pictures like 16 from California where liquefaction toppled 17 two buildings and left two of them standing 18 because they had rock bottom underneath 19 (indicating). We had the earthquake and 20 seven reactors shut down in -- in Japan. 21 They were on rock bottom, but they've been 22 shut now for two years because pipes and 23 equipment were broken and spilled 24 radioactivity all over the place. We got a 0016 1 diaster waiting to happen. If it happens 2 most of the eastern seaboard is at stake. We 3 got, like I said, 24,000 people living in 4 Delaware in the shadow of these plants. 5 Emergency evacuation is a dream. I-95 is a 6 parking lot as it is most of the time. If 7 there's an emergency in the EPC the roads all 8 flood up over there and the people from -- 9 from the EPC can't get out. I wanted to say 10 it for the very last time, if I don't get any 11 kind of response from somewhere I have to go 12 national, somehow this has to go out. We got 13 three nuclear reactors sitting on water. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. DEPIERRO: Thank you. 16 Okay. Our second commenter is Nancy Willing. 17 MS. WILLING: I think I might 18 have let Freda a little bit of the balance of 19 my time. I won't take too much time. But we 20 are very concerned here in Delaware about 21 evacuation plans and the difficulty of 22 imagining how the -- how people are going to 23 get out. I mean we have -- maybe not so much 24 around here, but we certainly have a 0017 1 development. We had had a development 2 overload. And the lack of planning in the 3 face of higher and higher population 4 densities is -- is worrisome. So 5 Mr. Mulligan has been very generous to give 6 us packets. We are going to be contacting 7 our legislators and petitioning for a very 8 similar, you know, response team and planner 9 -- planning team within our natural resource 10 department. So really my only question is a 11 view, is who's the best person I can -- can 12 -- that I can give my legislative 13 representative to contact? Who -- who among 14 you is the person that might give me -- 15 MR. DEPIERRO: What would -- 16 what would the concern be? 17 MS. WILLING: Well, to find 18 out, you know, just the -- just the contact 19 person. I know that your websites are -- are 20 full of information, but -- 21 MR. DEPIERRO: I mean in 22 response to, you know, political movement to 23 close the plants or -- 24 MS. WILLING: No. No, just the 0018 1 evacuation plan to -- I mean we don't have a 2 plan. We don't have an ongoing thing. So is 3 there somebody -- is there a contact person 4 if they have questions or -- 5 MR. DEPIERRO: Well, you can 6 call the -- if there's questions about the 7 New Jersey Nuclear Radiological Response Plan 8 you can call the -- the BNE, which is -- 9 MS. WILLING: The consulting 10 firm? 11 MR. DEPIERRO: Well, you know, 12 we're not -- we do have nuclear engineering. 13 We can -- we can discuss any questions you 14 have on our New Jersey response plan or the 15 State Police. 16 MS. WILLING: The State Police. 17 MR. DEPIERRO: Okay. And the 18 number for the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering 19 is 609-984-7000. 20 MS. FOTH: Excuse me. 21 Correction. It's 7700. 22 MR. DEPIERRO: I'm sorry. 23 7700. Wow. 24 MS. WILLING: That's all right. 0019 1 So it's the Bureau of -- 2 MR. DEPIERRO: Bureau of 3 Nuclear Engineering, right. And we can -- we 4 can discuss any issues you have with our 5 role, which is accident assessment and 6 protective action recommendations. And if 7 you have any questions about the actual 8 execution of the plan or the decisions you 9 can call the State Police. 10 LIEUTENANT SENSI: Sure. Talk 11 to -- talk to Lieutenant Colonel Hatfield. 12 MS. WILLING: Hatfield? 13 LIEUTENANT SENSI: And he's the 14 Lieutenant Colonel in charge of Homeland 15 Security. 16 MS. WILLING: Now, I suppose 17 this is a budgetary line item, you know, 18 for -- everybody's going to be concerned, 19 well, how much will this cost if we have to 20 put a planning unit in. Can you give me a 21 rough idea of -- of -- 22 MR. DEPIERRO: Well, I'm not -- 23 I'm not sure I understand what you're talking 24 about, a planning unit. 0020 1 MS. WILLING: Well, does this 2 represent a planning -- you know, it looks 3 like -- I mean in other words, are these 4 staffers just for planning or planning 5 implementation? This -- because this 6 gentleman here, it seems like that's a 7 specific set aside for -- 8 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: We're -- 9 we're a unit. Yeah, we have members that are 10 just in charge of the radiological -- well -- 11 MS. WILLING: Well, that's -- 12 that's kind of what I'm getting to, is that 13 there does seem like there will be a 14 budgetary line item for this if we set it up 15 in Delaware. 16 MR. DEPIERRO: I think -- 17 Delaware does have a plan. 18 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes. 19 MR. DEPIERRO: They do have a 20 plan. In fact, I don't know -- 21 MS. WILLING: She just laughed 22 because -- 23 MR. DEPIERRO: No, Dan Rose, 24 the gentleman in the back, he's a 0021 1 representative of DEMA, the Delaware 2 Emergency Management Agency. They have -- 3 have a plan. And I think if you're concerned 4 about -- that's right. You live in Delaware, 5 correct? 6 MS. WILLING: Yes. 7 MR. DEPIERRO: So you would 8 probably want to talk to -- do you have a 9 number, Dan? 10 MS. BERRYHILL: May I say 11 something? 12 MR. DEPIERRO: Yes, ma'am. 13 MS. BERRYHILL: DEMA told my 14 state senator that the plan is secret. 15 MR. DEPIERRO: Well, I think -- 16 I think this gentlemen behind in the last row 17 can give you a number and a contact. 18 MR. ROSE: Absolutely. 19 MR. DEPIERRO: He can probably 20 -- 21 MR. ROSE: I'll speak with you 22 after the meeting is over with and I'll give 23 you all the contact information. 24 MS. WILLING: Okay. All right. 0022 1 Thank you. 2 MR. DEPIERRO: And if they do 3 have a plan -- they have to have a plan. 4 MS. WILLING: Well, as Freda 5 said, DEMA represented to one of our state 6 senators that the plan is secret. That 7 doesn't make any sense to anybody. 8 MR. DEPIERRO: Actually it's on 9 the -- it's on-line, isn't it? It used to be 10 on -- on -- on-line, I believe, wasn't it? 11 MR. ROSE: I think I'm confused 12 about what plan you're referring to. We have 13 an access control, traffic management plan. 14 MS. WILLING: Well, an 15 evacuation plan, a comprehensive evacuation 16 plan. 17 MR. DEPIERRO: What I suggest 18 is after the hearing is to talk to Dan and 19 maybe he can help you out because this is 20 more of a -- between you and Delaware rather 21 than I think New Jersey. 22 MS. WILLING: All right. Now 23 we're going to -- we're going to lean on you 24 a little bit, so -- 0023 1 MR. DEPIERRO: That's okay. 2 Thank you. 3 MS. WILLING: The only way to 4 get something done is to -- 5 MR. DEPIERRO: Thank you. 6 MS. WILLING: So we'll talk 7 after? 8 MR. ROSE: Certainly, yes. 9 MR. DEPIERRO: Okay. Our third 10 speaker then is Mr. Joseph Mangano. Step 11 forward, please. 12 MR. MANGANO: Good evening. My 13 name is Joseph Mangano, M-A-N-G-A-N-O. I'm 14 here in my role as Associated Coordinator of 15 the UNPLUG Salem Campaign, a network of 16 organizations, local, state and national, 17 which acts as a safety watchdog for PSEG's 18 three nuclear power plants, Salem 1, Salem 2, 19 and Hope Creek. I'm also Executive Director 20 of the Radiation and Public Health Project, a 21 research and education organization based in 22 New York. I'm author or co-author of 24 23 medical journal articles and three books 24 documenting high cancer rates near nuclear 0024 1 plants. Tonight I'm representing Norm Cohen 2 and Unplug Salem, as Norm finds it difficult 3 to drive to and from evening meetings due to 4 medications he's taking for an ongoing 5 medical condition. 6 Our position, as stated every 7 year by Norm Cohen, continues to be that the 8 evacuation plan, as currently written, will 9 not work, especially in the hopefully 10 unlikely chance of a catastrophic accident 11 that happens quickly, before the plan could 12 even be put into motion. 13 Any kind of accident involves a 14 radiation release that triggers the 15 evacuation plan would lead to chaos, 16 especially on all two lanes road in Salem 17 County. Interstate 295, the Delaware 18 Memorial Bridge, and the New Jersey Turnpike 19 could easily turn into parking lots. In the 20 event of a large-scale meltdown, hundreds of 21 thousands of local residents would suffer 22 from radiation poisoning or cancer, according 23 to a 1982 study presented to Congress by the 24 Sandia National Laboratories. 0025 1 But all this has been discussed 2 before. And we will continue to agree to 3 disagree and hope the plan will never be put 4 to the test. 5 We do want to commend the New 6 Jersey Office of Emergency Management for 7 finally putting some of the evacuation plan 8 on its website, something Unplug Salem had 9 been asking to be done for years. It would 10 be helpful to review the website, though; the 11 last time I checked, there were too many 12 areas still to be completed. 13 Regarding this meeting, it 14 appears that you only send out notice to 15 those people who attended the year before. I 16 know this because Norm did not get a notice. 17 Your aim should be to encourage more people 18 to attend, so I hope you will mail out 19 notices to people who have attended say in 20 the last five years. 21 We have the following questions 22 and concerns, there's seven, so need not be 23 answered here tonight, I'll hand these out 24 and you can back to me in writing; one, what 0026 1 is the status and plan for replacing out of 2 date Potassium Iodide? Two, how is Potassium 3 Iodide being delivered to people moving into 4 Salem County? Three, are there any 5 distribution plans beyond the ten-mile 6 evacuation zone or any new distributions 7 planned? Four, how does the cessation of 8 funds for developing Yucca Mountain, which 9 suggests a permanent site will never open, 10 affect emergency planning for the future, 11 since Lower Alloways will now likely be a 12 long-term nuclear waste dump? Five, we 13 continue to request that we be allowed to 14 observe all or part of an evacuation 15 exercise. Six, what role does DEP/BNE expect 16 to play in the upcoming relicensing hearings 17 for Salem/Hope Creek? Will you be involved 18 as you were in the case of Oyster Creek? And 19 finally seven, are there, besides tritium, 20 other radioactive chemicals leaking from 21 Salem into the groundwater? And how do we 22 know this for sure? Thank you for your 23 time. And I will provide copies of this 24 statement for all of you. 0027 1 MR. DEPIERRO: We -- we -- 2 we -- we can probably answer -- 3 MR. MANGANO: All right. 4 MR. DEPIERRO: -- at least four 5 of the seven or five of the seven. 6 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: I have a 7 question. You referred to it as Sandia 8 National Laboratories. 9 MR. MANGANO: Yes. It's 10 commonly known as CRAC, C-R-A-C-II, 11 Consequences of a Reactor Accident 12 Calculation. 13 MR. MULLIGAN: What's the 14 number? Usually they have a number of some 15 sort. 16 MR. MANGANO: Oh, dear. It 17 was -- it was submitted to the Congress. I 18 can get you the committee number. November 19 1st, 1982. 20 MR. MULLIGAN: Just give Nick 21 the citation for the plan. That will be 22 fine. 23 MR. MANGANO: Certainly. If 24 you have -- 0028 1 MR. DEPIERRO: Carol, can you 2 pass those questions up? Because I think -- 3 I think we can respond to most of those 4 questions right now. 5 MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. 6 LIEUTENANT SENSI: The number 7 one question, the KI that we have in New 8 Jersey is -- is good until 2014. It was 9 replaced by the NRC. 10 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Jeff, how 11 many years ago was that? Jeff? 12 MR. WINEGAR: Well, it was -- I 13 reported it in here the -- two years, two 14 hearings ago. 15 MR. MULLIGAN: And we have 16 what? 17 MR. WINEGAR: Because of the 18 stockpile -- and I think Norm maybe hadn't 19 been here the last two times, because I 20 did -- I was able to answer that question. 21 We were able to replace the whole stockpile. 22 MR. DEPIERRO: The expiration 23 is 2014. 24 MR. WINEGAR: On -- on -- on 0029 1 the adult doses. And then -- 2 MR. DEPIERRO: And then an 3 extension on the other ones, right? 4 MR. WINEGAR: No. No, the 5 extension program is something different. 6 But we also got 65 milligram doses, which is 7 the child dose. And that -- that expires in 8 2012. So we were able to -- we actually got 9 over a million doses. We bought some. The 10 State Health Department actually purchased 11 them. And then we also got some from NRC. 12 And they have been distributed out to the 13 local health departments. And we also have a 14 stockpile in Trenton. The State Police has a 15 stockpile and also at several community 16 colleges. 17 AUDIENCE MEMBER: What about 18 pets? 19 MR. WINEGAR: No, it's not for 20 pets. 21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. You 22 don't give -- 23 MR. WINEGAR: No. 24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay. 0030 1 MR. WINEGAR: What was two? 2 MR. DEPIERRO: I'll read the 3 question. How is KI being delivered to 4 people moving into Salem County? And I think 5 the Health Department, Jeff can -- 6 MR. WINEGAR: Well, it's -- 7 it's -- yeah, the local health department I 8 gave -- let me tell you how many. 9 Salem/Cumberland Health Department I gave -- 10 I gave them 88,000. This is of the new -- 11 the new material. Over 88,000 doses of the 12 130 milligram adult dose. And the child dose 13 was close to 20,000. And in addition, they 14 also have liquid KI that's used for infants. 15 MR. DEPIERRO: So they can -- 16 they can go to their local health -- 17 MR. WINEGAR: Right. And they 18 had a -- they had a couple of clinics. 19 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes. 20 MR. WINEGAR: Each county had 21 had -- had a KI distribution clinic. 22 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Is it also 23 in the calendar that's handed out? 24 MR. DEPIERRO: Yes. 0031 1 MR. WINEGAR: In the back of 2 the calendar that everyone gets it -- it 3 tells them how to contact their local health 4 department, how they can get -- how they can 5 get KI. And they -- and they freely hand it 6 out to anybody. They'll send it out, too, I 7 think if you call them. 8 MR. MULLIGAN: Jeff, based on 9 the records you gave us, there were about 580 10 doses distributed to new residents or people 11 who -- whatever, last year in 12 Salem/Cumberland County. 13 MR. WINEGAR: And the third 14 question, there -- there are no plans to go 15 beyond 10 miles. 16 MR. DEPIERRO: On the fourth 17 question, how does the cessation of funds for 18 developing Yucca Mountain, which suggests a 19 permanent site will never open, affect 20 emergency planning for the future, since 21 Lower Alloways will now be a long-term waste 22 dump? Do you want to respond to that, John? 23 The -- the -- yeah, the future of Yucca 24 Mountain has no impact on how we would 0032 1 respond, how we prepare, how we train and how 2 we would respond, whether the -- the 3 material, waste material is dry-cask, stored 4 on site, or transported. So for -- for 5 the -- the failure or success of Yucca 6 Mountain will have no impact on our ability 7 to respond to an incident at a nuclear power 8 plant in New Jersey. 9 Number five, we continue to 10 request that we be allowed to observe all or 11 part of an evacuation exercise. And I'll 12 turn that over to Rich. 13 LIEUTENANT SENSI: We still 14 have the same liability issues affecting 15 civilians during an exercise. 16 MR. DEPIERRO: Okay. So 17 that's -- that's the same response to that 18 as -- 19 LIEUTENANT SENSI: You know 20 what, we'll -- we'll look into it again and 21 see if -- see if there's someway to get 22 someone maybe from your organization to watch 23 that. Maybe that would -- that would help. 24 MR. MANGANO: Great. 0033 1 LIEUTENANT SENSI: So we'll get 2 back to you on that. 3 MR. MULLIGAN: You know, we -- 4 we can't guarantee that. 5 LIEUTENANT SENSI: It's a 6 liability issue. If we can figure out 7 something. 8 MR. DEPIERRO: Question number 9 six, what role does the DEP/BNE expect to 10 play in the upcoming relicensing hearings for 11 Salem and Hope Creek? Will you be involved 12 as you were in Oyster Creek? And I'll let 13 Mr. Mulligan respond to that. 14 MR. MULLIGAN: I -- I 15 believe -- you know, the answer to that 16 question is exactly the same. As -- as much 17 as we were involved in -- in the review 18 and -- and the inspection process for the 19 relicensing of Oyster Creek we -- we will be 20 as involved at -- at Hope Creek and -- and 21 Salem. As -- in fact, I think -- you know, 22 if you wouldn't mind, Jerry. We've already 23 been involved in the preliminary relicensing 24 meetings even prior to the submittal to the 0034 1 NRC. And, Jerry, if you want to talk a 2 little bit about our involvement that you 3 have for the record. 4 MR. HUMPHRIES: There's two of 5 us, myself and Elliott Rosenfeld. Elliott 6 primarily is in Salem. I'm primarily in Hope 7 Creek. We've already been to Kenneth Square 8 where they're doing the initial compilation 9 of the -- of the amendment or the license 10 amendment for extending the license. We 11 looked at their preliminary work on at least 12 three occasions, I want to say four, but I'm 13 not positive of that. I'm getting to that 14 point where -- I'm getting to that age where 15 I don't remember all of it. Anyway, we're -- 16 we're planning on doing it exactly the way we 17 did it at Oyster Creek. We have two other 18 fellows, our supervisor and one other 19 engineer at Oyster Creek. There's a lot of 20 experience there, so we're going to rely on 21 them to help us in the right direction. So, 22 yeah, we're going to do it like we did at 23 Oyster Creek and we'll see what comes out of 24 it. 0035 1 MR. DEPIERRO: And the last 2 question, I'm going to refer to Mr. Mulligan 3 again, are there, besides tritium, other 4 radioactive chemicals leaking from Salem into 5 the groundwater and how do we know this is 6 for sure? 7 MR. MULLIGAN: We do what's 8 called a groundwater monitoring program. 9 They've -- they've initiated on site. PSEG 10 takes a -- a number of samples. They -- they 11 got a number of wells drilled on site as -- 12 as a result of the leak that was discovered a 13 number of years ago. They split those 14 samples with us. We have them analyzed by an 15 independent laboratory. And -- and, you 16 know, those results show right -- right now 17 that, you know, the -- the remediation plan 18 that's been put in place by PSEG is -- is -- 19 is removing the -- the tritium from the 20 groundwater. We -- we don't have any 21 positive indication that there's other 22 chemicals other than tritium at this point 23 leaking into the groundwater, so -- but we do 24 monitor that. All those results from all of 0036 1 our environmental monitoring is -- is 2 available on our website. You can go ahead 3 and -- and take a look at that. Our 4 environmental report also has all the results 5 of all of our environmental, not just the 6 water, you know, the water samples that we 7 take, but it includes all of the -- the 8 environmental samples that we take, including 9 air, vegetation and aquatic life. That's all 10 included in our environmental reporting. You 11 can help yourself to one of those. 12 MR. DEPIERRO: So, Mr. Mangano, 13 I -- I hope we've answered those. On number 14 five, the State Police did not promise the -- 15 the answer you were looking for, but they 16 said they would get back to you on that, if 17 that's acceptable. 18 MR. MANGANO: Yes, fine. 19 MR. MULLIGAN: Mr. Mangano, do 20 you -- do you still expect all answers to 21 these of these in writing, too? 22 MR. MANGANO: No. 23 MR. MULLIGAN: In other words, 24 the record is -- is sufficient for -- 0037 1 MR. MANGANO: Yes. 2 MR. MULLIGAN: Thank you. 3 MR. DEPIERRO: Thank you. 4 Okay. Our next speaker then is, and I 5 apologize right now, and I see her every 6 year, this is why I apologize, Nogaki. 7 MS. NOGAKI: Nogaki. Good 8 evening. My name is Jane Nogaki, and I 9 represent the New Jersey Enviromental 10 Federation. I'm the vice chair. Also our 11 organization is a member of Unplug Salem, the 12 coalition that Mr. Mangano is representing. 13 And so I'd like to just support, you know, 14 the questions and comments that he made as 15 well as those by Ms. Berryhill. This 16 afternoon I received an email from somebody 17 that lives in Woodstown, a Salem County 18 resident who couldn't be here tonight because 19 there's a planning board meeting there, but 20 they informed me that today they received a 21 reverse 911 call at their home that there was 22 an -- an earthquake in the Salem River in the 23 Mannington Meadows area, a 2.8, whatever the 24 measurement is, earthquake. 0038 1 MR. MANGANO: Richter. 2 MS. NOGAKI: On the Richter 3 scale, an earthquake in the Salem River. And 4 I think it goes to the point that Freda 5 mentioned that an artificial island doesn't 6 have a bedrock base. It's built on basically 7 gravel and sand on dredge spoils. The -- the 8 potential for an earthquake to cause 9 significant release of failure of those 10 reactors is a real concern. This same person 11 pointed out to me that there actually had 12 been small earthquakes in the area of 13 Artificial Island in 1990 and in 1998. Are 14 you aware of -- of those and -- and what 15 happened today in Mannington Meadows? 16 MR. DEPIERRO: We are aware of 17 what happened. 18 MS. NOGAKI: Was -- was that 19 reverse 911 call an artifact of this plan or 20 was it just a general Salem emergency county 21 response notification? 22 MR. DEPIERRO: There was no 23 threshold as a result of the earthquake to 24 implement initiating the plan. In other 0039 1 words, there was no threshold met that 2 notifications even had to be made. 3 MS. NOGAKI: Right. And I 4 recognize -- 5 MR. DEPIERRO: We were aware of 6 it. We were aware of it. 7 MS. NOGAKI: I recognize that 8 Mannington Meadows, you know, is probably, 9 what, miles from the plant, ten miles, 10 eleven. What would a threshold number be 11 to -- 12 MR. DEPIERRO: Well, we'll have 13 to refer that one to our nuclear engineer 14 Jerry Humphries. Is there a magnitude? 15 MR. HUMPHRIES: I'd have to 16 look at that. 17 MR. DEPIERRO: There is a 18 threshold. We have a guideline that -- or 19 the plan has a guideline that they follow and 20 if certain thresholds are met with any kind 21 of metrological event that they have to 22 either notify the state the procedure and if 23 certain thresholds are met take the plan out 24 of service. But they were not met, so, 0040 1 therefore -- 2 MS. NOGAKI: So as part of that 3 notification today, I don't know what the 4 whole content of it was, but was there any 5 instructions to people today to take any kind 6 of action or -- 7 MR. DEPIERRO: Well, as per the 8 plan there was -- there was no need for 9 notification through -- through the plan's 10 procedures that we follow for nuclear 11 events. I don't know what the local 12 municipality has chosen to -- 13 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: The message 14 came out from the county. We were not -- we 15 don't have -- 16 MS. NOGAKI: Did you get it? 17 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: No, I was in 18 Trenton. 19 MS. NOGAKI: Okay. 20 MR. DEPIERRO: But the State 21 Police was notified, right, Jon? 22 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Yes. 23 LIEUTENANT SENSI: We knew of 24 the incident. 0041 1 MR. DEPIERRO: They knew of the 2 incident. 3 MS. NOGAKI: Okay. 4 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: We were 5 notifying people in the emergency community 6 through -- through our regional operations in 7 the television center. The county being 8 proactive sending out the message in a 9 reverse 911, it was not a part of the plan. 10 It's just the fact that Salem County 11 Emergency Management tries to follow good 12 practices and keeps the public informed as 13 best they can. 14 MS. NOGAKI: Right. Well, I 15 think it would be important even at -- at a 16 level that's not considered significant 17 enough to trigger some kind of action to let 18 people know, you know, no action is needed on 19 your part, this is just for your information, 20 you know, if you're wondering what the -- you 21 know, the movement was. I suppose that they 22 would be checking into things that could have 23 been affected closer to Mannington Meadows, 24 any dams, any dikes, sewer treatment plants, 0042 1 you know, waste water treatment, drinking 2 water treatment. But I realize that's beyond 3 your scope. I have a question about the -- 4 the tritium leaks. And this -- this is kind 5 of activated by the tritium that happened at 6 Oyster Creek and the ongoing investigation 7 there, because the levels were quite high 8 from a leak in some pipes that -- you know, 9 that made tritium gather in a -- I guess a 10 containment around some of the equipment. 11 And I'm wondering is tritium a regulated 12 contaminant? In other words, is it part of a 13 discharge permanent? Is there an allowable 14 level of tritium that is allowed to be 15 discharged from the plant on a routine 16 basis? 17 MR. MULLIGAN: Yeah. The 18 answer to that question is yes. Nuclear 19 power plants are allowed to discharge gaseous 20 and liquid levels up to certain levels. And 21 that's regulated by the NRC. There are 22 limits for liquid and for gaseous, too, 23 individually, so tritium -- 24 MS. NOGAKI: And what would be 0043 1 the origin of -- you know, just understanding 2 from a -- a structural standpoint, what's the 3 origin of these tritium leaks? Like, you 4 know, it's -- it's a legitimate discharge? 5 Like where is it coming from? 6 MR. MULLIGAN: Tritium is 7 generated inside nuclear -- inside nuclear 8 reactors from -- from the -- from their 9 fission process, so it's a natural bypass 10 of -- of the -- of the reactors operating, so 11 that -- that's where it comes from. 12 MS. NOGAKI: And a small amount 13 of it is allowed to be released in what, the 14 cooling water or -- 15 MR. MULLIGAN: That's -- 16 that's -- that's correct. 17 MS. NOGAKI: And the rest of it 18 is inside the reactor, you know, contained 19 within the reactor? Does it become a waste 20 product, it goes into the dry-cask storage 21 eventually? 22 MR. MULLIGAN: The -- the rest 23 is contained. And, Jerry, you can help me 24 out on this. 0044 1 MR. HUMPHRIES: It usually 2 comes out in the spent fuel pool. 3 MR. MULLIGAN: Right. 4 MS. NOGAKI: Okay. So it 5 becomes part of the waste stream? Okay. 6 MR. MULLIGAN: Correct. 7 MS. NOGAKI: So when it -- when 8 it says in this fact sheet about the 9 investigation of the tritium leak at Oyster 10 Creek and it says that, you know, no tritium 11 or gamma emitting radionuclides have been 12 found in any surface water samples -- so 13 there's no threat to the public health and 14 safety. They're looking at the intake canal, 15 the discharge canal. Is this -- is this 16 really an accurate statement? Because it 17 sounds like they are allowed to discharge a 18 certain amount of tritium. What -- is what 19 the meaning of this is if it isn't above -- 20 MR. MULLIGAN: It's -- it's 21 non detectable. Whatever is being discharged 22 into -- into the canal at Oyster Creek cannot 23 be detected. We take samples. We can't 24 detect it. 0045 1 MS. NOGAKI: You mean the 2 discharge limit on the permanent is like 3 undetectable? 4 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes. 5 MS. NOGAKI: So the limit is 6 set at undetectable? 7 MR. MULLIGAN: No, the limit is 8 set that if you detect up -- at -- at a 9 certain level it -- it is above -- 10 MS. NOGAKI: A standard? 11 MR. MULLIGAN: A standard. 12 Right. 13 MS. NOGAKI: Okay. 14 MR. MULLIGAN: So if you -- if 15 you can't find it in the water then it's 16 obviously below that level. 17 MS. NOGAKI: Okay. So I guess 18 my question is -- 19 MR. MULLIGAN: For -- for 20 example, groundwater standards for New Jersey 21 are 20,000 picocuries per liter. You know, 22 that's -- that's the standard. If you -- if 23 you take a water sample and -- and you can't 24 count down and find any then it's -- it's 0046 1 undetectable in that water sample. 2 MS. NOGAKI: So are you saying 3 that all of the discharges are undetectable 4 from the plant, are -- are at a level that 5 are undetectable of tritium? 6 MR. MULLIGAN: Well, when we 7 test at certain places like at -- at the 8 discharge and at the Route 9 Bridge at Oyster 9 Creek, when we take a water sample and we 10 count that sample we cannot find tritium in 11 that sample. 12 MS. NOGAKI: How about at Salem 13 and Hope Creek? 14 MR. MULLIGAN: At their 15 discharge we don't find tritium in their 16 discharge. 17 MS. NOGAKI: Okay. Haven't 18 there been some hydrazine discharges, though, 19 above a level that was appropriate? 20 MR. MULLIGAN: Hydrazine I'd 21 have to -- I'd have to find that answer and 22 get back to you. That I don't know. 23 Ms. NOGAKI: Okay. Well, when 24 you were asking were there any other 0047 1 discharges -- I guess hydrazine is not 2 radiological -- 3 MR. MULLIGAN: It's not 4 radiological. 5 MS. NOGAKI: -- but it's -- 6 MR. MULLIGAN: That's correct. 7 And the question was radiological, I'm fairly 8 certain, radioactive chemicals. 9 MS. NOGAKI: Okay. Let's see 10 here. So I guess the -- the concern and -- 11 and the hope that I would have is that 12 through the relicensing prospect that the 13 capacity for these leaks to occur -- you 14 know, it's both a -- a safety and an 15 environmental harassment. And like Oyster 16 Creek that had this issue with the drive- 17 lining corroding and so forth at Salem and 18 Hope Creek there are many thousands of feet, 19 maybe even miles of underground piping that's 20 subject to corrosion. And, you know, if 21 there is a chance for leakage, you know, the 22 prospect of the salt water, you know, the 23 sandy acquiesce soil makes that chance for 24 leakage even more significant. And I'm -- 0048 1 I'm just expecting and hoping that the DEP, 2 the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering will be 3 raising that as a red flag during their 4 re licensing that, you know, people shouldn't 5 wait for these leaks to happen, you know, and 6 then respond, that there should be a 7 proactive way of continually assessing and -- 8 and verifying the competency of these 9 underground pipes, because, you know, their 10 frailty and vulnerability is what could lead 11 to, you know, a radiological leak and, you 12 know, that is, you know, paramount to be 13 avoided. The earthquakes, I don't know what 14 we can do about them, but at least, you know, 15 having an accurate surveillance on the piping 16 systems could prevent a leak in -- in that 17 way. My last comment goes back to a comment 18 that Roy Jones made last year. He was from 19 the South Jersey Enviromental Justice 20 Alliance. And he had asked had a full scale 21 evacuation exercise ever been conducted where 22 you actually, you know, recruit the school 23 bus drivers to go to the schools and, you 24 know, evacuate kids out of the ten-mile zone 0049 1 or whatever the evacuation zone is. And the 2 answer at that time was that you had done 3 kind of tabletop exercises, you had, you 4 know, mobilized certain kinds of personnel, 5 but as far as a full scale test of the 6 evacuation plan that has never happened. And 7 so I would just reiterate that, you know, 8 it's strongly suggested that this evacuation 9 plan be fully deployed because otherwise, you 10 know, this paper exercise may not ever 11 actually come to fruition when it's needed. 12 You know, schools practice fire drills once a 13 month, you know, people know that it's going 14 to happen, you know, there's no panic, they 15 just, you know, evacuate the building and I 16 think that this -- a plan of this magnitude 17 should also be excised. Okay. That 18 concludes my comments. Thank you. 19 MR. DEPIERRO: Thank you. Our 20 last speaker tonight, registered speaker is 21 Roger Nogaki. 22 MR. NOGAKI: Nogaki. 23 MR. DEPIERRO: Spell your name 24 for the stenographer, please. 0050 1 MR. NOGAKI: Roger Nogaki, 2 N-O-G-A-K-I. I'm -- I'm following my wife as 3 I usually do. 4 MR. DEPIERRO: There you go. 5 He has worse handwriting than you. 6 MR. NOGAKI: Thank you very 7 much. 8 MR. DEPIERRO: I have the same 9 problem. 10 MR. NOGAKI: I -- I -- I want 11 to thank you for giving us this opportunity 12 to -- to stand up and talk to you about our 13 thought process and face the residents of New 14 Jersey and -- and our neighboring states of 15 Delaware and Pennsylvania. You know, I find 16 it interesting, because I guess it's been 17 almost 50 years ago when I served in the 18 United States Army. I served in the United 19 States Army Chemical Corps. And one of the 20 projects that I worked on, I was in a CDR 21 unit, a laboratory unit, one of the things 22 that I -- that I worked on during that period 23 of time was how -- if America -- if America 24 was attacked by the Soviet Union and we were 0051 1 to be bombed by their bombers or their 2 rockets with -- with nuclear bombs how would 3 it affect and where would it affect people if 4 they dropped the bomb in certain areas. And 5 so I -- I spent some -- I spent, you know, 6 six years in the Army and I studied this for 7 over a six-year period, how it would affect 8 the American public and -- and such. And one 9 of the things -- and it wasn't just the 10 nuclear bombs but it was other things. It 11 was gas and chemical warfare, you know, 12 poisoning our water supply and damaging our 13 infrastructure. And one of the things that 14 I've learned over the years since I've worked 15 in this -- this area all my life and one of 16 things that I found was that we always try 17 to -- or in today's environment we try to 18 pick a -- a scenario and say, well, how do we 19 answer this and we do it in a mass basis. 20 Well, one of the things that I learned when I 21 studied how to affect people, how to 22 incapacitate them, how to make them ill, how 23 to kill them, how to destroy them and their 24 properties and such, I -- I studied all these 0052 1 things for the years that I was in the 2 service, and one of the things that I -- I 3 looked at over the years, because I've been 4 in the safety and security business for over 5 40 years, one of the things that I found was 6 that the bigger the problem that you have the 7 more vulnerable it is to Murphy's law. And I 8 think that's where we are right now. I think 9 adding another nuclear power plant or another 10 nuclear unit down here in South Jersey, in 11 Salem here can -- can be an open invitation 12 to disaster. I think that -- when I look at 13 what we're trying to do on a national basis I 14 think that we're going in the wrong 15 direction. I don't think building these big 16 huge power plants, whether they're coal fired 17 or they're a nuclear power plant is really 18 the answer. What we should be doing is 19 breaking things up into smaller units so that 20 we can never, ever be without some level of 21 utility services in this country. When I 22 look at places like -- I read about Germany 23 as an example. Germany has made a -- has 24 elected to make a -- a conscious effort to 0053 1 distribute into smaller packages their -- 2 their services for their country. And 3 they've done this through solar energy, solar 4 and -- and wind energy. And much of Europe 5 is going in these directions, where they 6 won't be so reliant on Soviet -- on Russian 7 gas to power their utility services or to 8 heat their homes and they're not going to 9 rely on nuclear power, except for France. 10 France is going the other way. But it seems 11 to me that we present more power -- more 12 problems with these big, huge nuclear power 13 plants than we would if we were to 14 redistribute these things into smaller 15 packages. If new homes, as for example, were 16 built with alternative energy sources, 17 whether it's nuclear -- I mean whether it's 18 solar or -- or wind energy type of -- of 19 generation I think that these two things give 20 us some alternatives. There's also -- 21 there's also using the hydrothermal thing, 22 digging down into the ground and -- and 23 taking power out of the -- out of the 24 ground. And so there's a lot of different 0054 1 alternatives, but, you know, we're -- 2 we're -- we're focusing on old technology. 3 And -- and, you know, while nuclear energy 4 is -- is, you know, less than 100 years old 5 the problem is, is that we're not thinking 6 about new technology. The new technology is 7 going to bring us jobs, is going to bring us 8 better security and is going to enable us to 9 live a more stressful-free life. I mean I've 10 been coming to these meetings with my wife. 11 I've sat in the back there and I've listened 12 to you folks talk about this, but I've never 13 heard anybody come up here and say you know 14 what, we're really moving in the wrong 15 direction, we should be looking to spread the 16 potential for a diaster to happen. You're 17 never going to run away from a nuclear 18 diaster. It just is not going to happen. I 19 don't care what kind of pills you give 20 people. I don't care what kind of desktop 21 plans you have to try to evacuate people. 22 Under the worst case scenarios it's not going 23 to work. It didn't work when those planes 24 bombed the -- the Wall Street buildings, 0055 1 Tower 1 and Tower 2, you know. All kinds of 2 things went wrong over there and that's why 3 we lost, what, over 3,000 people in those 4 buildings, so my -- I guess my statement to 5 you folks is, I think we ought to start 6 looking at alternative sources. And, you 7 know, it's great that the State Police are 8 working on how to evacuate people, but under 9 the worst case scenarios you're not going to 10 do it. You're going to just cause panic. I 11 think we ought to be looking at 12 redistributing our power sources rather than 13 consolidating it. Thank you. 14 MS. WILLING: I have a brief 15 follow-up, if I may. 16 MR. DEPIERRO: Sure. 17 MS. WILLING: I heard -- 18 MR. DEPIERRO: State your name 19 again, please. 20 MS. WILLING: That's right. 21 Nancy Willing, W-I-L-L-I-N-G. I'm just a 22 little concerned with the discrepancy. 23 Mr. Mulligan, is that his name? We had 24 spoken, chatted earlier and he is under the 0056 1 assumption that Salem is drilled into 2 bedrock, but we have Freda who says she 3 investigated it at length and then we have 4 Jane verifying that it is not in bedrock. So 5 maybe -- I wouldn't -- wouldn't mind that if 6 that discrepancy was cleared up, especially 7 if you're thinking about adding onto Salem. 8 MR. MULLIGAN: We'll get back 9 to you on that. 10 MS. WILLING: Thank you so 11 much. You do have my address. I would like 12 an answer to that question. 13 MR. MULLIGAN: Absolutely. 14 MR. DEPIERRO: I believe that 15 everyone that filled out a registration card 16 has spoken. Is there anyone else that has a 17 question or a comment regarding the adequacy 18 of the Radiological Emergency Response Plan? 19 Okay. I want to thank everyone then for 20 coming. If they're no further questions I 21 believe we will adjourn, so this hearing is 22 adjourned. Thank you for all coming. 23 (Whereupon, the hearing 24 concluded at 7:55 p.m.) 0057 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 2 I, Joseph P. Dromgoole, 3 Professional Reporter and Notary Public, do 4 hereby certify that I reported the public 5 hearing, in the above-captioned matter; that 6 the said witness was duly sworn by me; that 7 the foregoing is a true and correct 8 transcript of the stenographic notes of the 9 testimony taken by me in the above-captioned 10 matter. 11 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not 12 an attorney or counsel of any of the parties, 13 nor a relative or employee of any attorney or 14 counsel in connection with the action, nor 15 financially interested in the action. 16 17 ____________________ 18 Joseph P. Dromgoole 19 Professional Court Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 DATED __________________