Spotlight

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON OTHER HEALTH-RELATED TOPICS IN TURKEY POINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1. Did Hurricane Andrew, which swept directly over the Turkey Point site in September 1992, damage the plant, re-suspend accumulated radioactivity on the site, and harm the environment and human health?

   While the NRC states that it deemed the plant's design adequate to withstand severe weather in the original license granted to Turkey Point (p. 4-43), it didn't specifically address Hurricane Andrew's effects on the plant. Such a devastating natural disaster should merit consideration in the GEIS, which is supposed to protect local public health from harmful radiation until 2033.

2. Could other sources of radiation, such as the Chernobyl accident and Nevada atomic bomb tests, be the source of Sr-90 in baby teeth and rising childhood cancer rates?

   From 1990-92 to 1995-97, cancer cases diagnosed in Miami-Dade and Broward County children under age ten rose steadily from 228 to 314, a rate increase of 25.4%. In addition, Strontium-90 levels in area baby teeth rose during the years 1991-94 (although more teeth are needed to confirm this initial result). Radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident (1986) and Nevada underground bomb tests (ended 1992) cannot be contributing factors.

3. Does liquid radioactive waste discharged into below-ground cooling canals present any threat to the local environment and public health? The NRC claims there is no such threat (p. 2-17 and 2-18).

   Cooling canals are unlined, and located close to the Biscayne Aquifer, which supplies local drinking and farm water. According to the NRC there "may be exchange of water between the cooling canal system and the groundwater beneath the canal" (p. 2-18). Neither the NRC nor the utility monitors the amount of radioactive chemicals shifting from the canals to the groundwater, so the potential threat to the environment and human health is untested and should be explored.

4. Turkey Point nuclear units 3 & 4 were closed for most of 1983 and 1984 to replace defective steam generators, which began to corrode soon after the plant opened in the early 1970s. The GEIS acknowledges that steam generator leaks can be associated with "unmonitored radioactive airborne releases." Are the currently-used steam generators and their potential for tube leaks and corrosion an environmental issue when considering the re-licensure application? (This issue not addressed by the NRC).

   Turkey Point's original and current steam generators were manufactured by the Westinghouse Corporation, which was sued by 14 utilities operating nuclear plants. Westinghouse won one suit, while settling the others out of court. Florida Power and Light, which filed the original suit in 1978 based on problems at Turkey Point, entered into one of these settlements. Because Turkey Point's current generators have been used for nearly 20 years (up to 50 years if the license is extended), the NRC should address any potential environmental and health threats posed by these aging parts, before an extension of its license is granted.

5. Do the NRC and Florida Power and Light make adequate measurements of radiation dose to the public from Turkey Point emissions? The NRC says that they do, and that the public is not affected (p. 2-10).

The NRC cannot and should not presume that Turkey Point emissions are harmless, since it does not measure in-body levels of radioactive chemicals like Strontium-90. In recent years, Strontium-90 measurements in milk near nuclear plants were no longer required. These levels were significant: in 1976, milk from dairy farms 5 to 10 miles from the Millstone plant in Connecticut had the same Strontium-90 concentration as in 1961-62, at the peak of atmospheric atomic weapons testing. With 123,000 Floridians living within 10 miles of Turkey Point, and over 3 million within 50 miles, it is critical that such measurements be made and compared with trends in cancer.

More >