Nuclear Fuel Services Public Comment

Linda Cataldo Modica

February 28, 2025
Division of Water Resources
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
William R. Snodgrass-Tennessee Tower
312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 11 th Floor
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1102 VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
cc: [email protected]
RE: COMMENTS ON DRAFT NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0002038 FOR NUCLEAR
FUEL SERVICES, INC. (NFS)

     Dear TDEC Water Permit Staff:
     This letter addresses my concerns regarding draft NPDES Permit No.
TN0002038 for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. These comments are based on more
than 3 decades of lived experiences, guided by mentors and informed by the social
teachings of my faith. I have been privileged to work with “alert and knowledgeable”
citizens (as Eisenhower called them), good folks devoted to the wellbeing of our
community – a Wall of Women (backed up by some great guys) who stood up to
government agencies captured by the corporations they claim to regulate. With
gratitude to these wonderful collaborators who used their time and effort and
personal resources in service of truth & the public good over the years, I respectfully submit these comments in response to TDEC’s Public Participation Opportunity notice dated January 21, 2025 which states:

“The purpose of this notice is to advise the public of the following
proposed permit actions and to solicit comments and information necessary
to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed activities on human health
and the environment.” …
“TDEC is requesting public comment on this permit action.
Obtaining a broad range of facts and opinions on Agency actions is one of
the best ways to ensure quality decisions.” …

     The generosity of time and attentiveness of TDEC staff -- especially Oscar
Montenegro who provided a link to documents that facilitated the research needed to produce these comments – has been helpful during this period of public
engagement. I also appreciate the spirit of collegiality with the general public that
TDEC expressed in the Erwin Record public notice:
“Permit conditions are tentative and subject to public comment.”

     Taking up the opportunity to provide feedback on TN0002038, I have reviewed the August 5, 2024 application by BWXT/Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (hereinafter, NFS) for renewal of NPDES Permit No. TN0002038. I have also studied relevant documents on TDEC’s website and have compared the draft with the active permit
under which NFS is currently licensed to discharge wastewater through Outfall 001,
a pipe that protrudes into the Nolichucky River at Mile Marker 94.6.

     A. BACKDROP
     1) “I know we ate radiation straight from Mama’s garden.”1
About 20 years ago, hundreds of area residents turned out for a series of
meetings organized by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) which was conducting research on the exposure pathways through which
toxic chemicals sourced from NFS impact human health. Several months of
research, interviews and the collection of written comments ensued before the
ATSDR final report -- Public Health Assessment for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.. --
ranked NFS an “Indeterminant Public Health Hazard” based on past conditions.
Under current and reasonably-foreseeable future conditions, ATSDR’s scientist (who
I recently learned has been “inconclusive by design” 2 in other communities where
nuclear facilities have contaminated schools, neighborhoods and drinking water)
gave NFS a ranking of “No Apparent Public Health Hazard”.
     Despite ATSDR’s failure to address the impact on our health of the radioactive
toxins spewed by NFS from its stacks and poured onto the land and into our creeks
and river, the federal agency did raise substantive questions that are germane to this
proceeding. The time is now for the State to protect us from the health hazards
released by NFS and to finally answer the questions left hanging since 2007. See
excerpt from Page 25 of the ATSDR Public Health Assessment, following.
​​

Current and Future Conditions -ATSDR ranks this site as No Apparent Public Health Hazard. As there are no completed exposure pathways existing whereby the groundwater would be used as a source of public water The lack of knowledge about the karst formations is of concern for there is insufficient data to determine if the contaminants associated with groundwater in this area will impact public wells in the future. Because the contaminants present in the groundwater are a mixture of many volatile organic compounds, health effects of mixtures may be an issue. However, no available studies directly characterize health hazards and dose-response relationships for exposures to "whole" mixtures containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. Furthermore, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have not been developed to predict dispositional and toxicological outcomes of joint action of mixtures of these four chemicals. Similarly, interactions of heavy metals with other heavy metals or organic compounds are unknown at this time.
​

     ​2) “1 chance in 71 for NFS” 3
One chance in 71 that the families living near NFS would suffer a latent cancer
fatality (LCF). 1 in 71. Shocking! Yet, not only was this grim statistic relegated to a
footnote to a table on page 11, the DOE/NNSA buried its Supplement Analysis
Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium on the internet. No media notices.
No opportunity was offered to the public for comment on the draft report even though members of our community (myself included) had engaged with the DOE during the Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched Uranium Environmental Impact Statement scoping process.
     ​The Nuclear Regulatory Commission claimed not to know that the analysis in
the 1996 EIS had been updated by the DOE/NNSA and tried (unsuccessfully) to
explain away the report’s findings to a packed house at Erwin Town Hall. The
political cartoonist for the Erwin Record 4 captured the public’s rejection then – and
now – of the government’s claim that its regulations protect our families’ wellbeing.

     You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Likewise,
you don’t need to be a chemist or a health physicist or a nuclear engineer or a
biologist or a public health analyst (I’m none of these) to understand the DOE’s
explanation for the shockingly-high risk of dying from cancer if you live near NFS.
It’s because homes, vegetable gardens, playgrounds, churches, schools and
businesses – humans known in government-speak as “Maximally Exposed Offsite
Individuals“ (MEOIs) -- are a stone’s throw from NFS. The Supplement Analysis
elaborated somewhat on why down-blending at NFS was so much more detrimental
to its neighbors than other sites:

“The largest calculated MEOI dose from down-blending…would
occur at NFS primarily due to the much closer proximity of the MEOI.” 5

     3) “They didn’t want to know.”
Moms and dads and grandparents of kids with cancer, their teammates,
doctors (even if their practices aren’t in Erwin), families of cancer victims, parish
nurses – they all get it. That’s why the vast Unicoi County High School auditorium
was packed when a committee of scientists from the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) came to Erwin. The Phase I Committee had been selected to begin the
process of updating the 1990 study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on Cancer
in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities.
     Among the authors of the 1990 study was a known apologist for the nuclear
industry who would probably have accepted as gospel that the “releases from
nuclear” facilities that “are reported” really were “quite low”. 6 In contrast, this Phase
1 committee was comprised of researchers who were going to dig deep. These
scientists had an interest in Erwin and a focus on childhood cancer. They seemed to
know NFS’s reputation as the “sieve of the nuclear industry” 7 , were aware of the
damning ATSDR and DOE/NNSA reports, of widespread offsite contamination, and
of the toxic stew of radionuclides that NFS releases.
     Their report, Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities
Phase 1, 8 recommended a pilot study that would have included 6 nuclear reactor
sites and one fuel facility, NFS. In part because the NAS plan was to assess the
availability and usefulness of data on liquid and airborne effluents, NRC staff
scoured its archives for NFS documents and posted dozens of legacy environmental
reports onto its website, ADAMS.
     Ultimately, the NRC pulled the plug on the cancer risk study. But, had the
Phase II committee been allowed to analyze historical data, the researchers would
have found that their concerns about Erwin were justified. Not only because of the
cumulative impact of long-term nuclear waste discharges onto the land and into our
ground water surface drinking water sources, but also because, over the decades,
NFS has released a liquid radioactive chemical cocktail: Americium-241, Cesium-
137, Sodium-22, Neptunium-237, Lead-212, Plutonium-238, Pu-239 & Pu-238/239, Radium-224, Technetium-99, Thorium-228, Th-230, Th-231, Th-232 & Th-234 and Uranium-232, U-233/234, U-234, U-235, U-235/236 & U-238. 9
About 5 years ago, I had the opportunity to recount the story of the canceled
cancer study at a continuing-education class. The audience of mostly ETSU retirees
shook their heads in disapproval of the NRC and then in five words, one of them
blurted out a 5-word distillation of the situation we’re in with respect to our
government: “They didn’t want to know.” Exactly. The NRC didn’t want to know the
long-term harm NFS was causing our families otherwise it would have to do an EIS
to assess cumulative impacts. Couldn’t have that, even though an EIS has never
been done on NFS. An EIS would involve the public. That would mean listening to
moms whose children died from cancer – and be shamed again, just like at the NAS
meeting. Instead, the NRC snuck through a 25-year license renewal. When asked
“Why?”, the NRC project manager for NFS shrugged & said “we never said no
before”.

     4) Unicoi County cancer mortality “now 39% above the U.S. rate” 10
Despite the double whammy of the cancelled cancer study and 25-year license
extension, science in the public interest has persisted. Through the collection and
analysis of attic dust samples from homes in Erwin, it is now known that NFS has
contaminated private residences with nuclear waste blown from their stacks –
Plutonium included.
     ​Michael E. Ketterer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Biochemistry
at Northern Arizona University, has more than 20 years of experience using legally-
defensible testing methods to identify radioisotopes in environmental samples. Dr.
Ketterer has an extensive record of peer-reviewed scientific publications and
produced a memorandum to the residents of Erwin dated May 18, 2023. In it,
Ketterer described his findings which are excerpted from his memo below each
bullet point:
​

•  Uranium-236, an isotope not found in natural uranium and that’s traceable to the processing of “recycled uranium” by NFS, is discovered in attic dusts of a private home located between 0.75 and 1.25 miles from the facility. Quote:

The attic dust contains the isotope 236U, an isotope which is nearly exclusively of synthetic origin. Uranium-236 is well-known to be present in "recycled uranium" feed mater recovered from Pu production reactors. Previous work by the author has also identified the isotope 236U in association with NFS-derived contamination found in an offsite location. The presence of the 236U in the attic dust cannot be explained by any other source besides the NFS facilities.

• Plutonium traceable to NFS's past mixed oxide fuel processing, as well as to fallout from nuclear weapons testing - is in attic dust too. Quote:

The attic dust sample was also found to contain the isotopes 239Pu, and 240Pu. The 240Pu/239Pu atom ratios are systematically lower than expected for plutonium originating from global (stratospheric) fallout, which is known to a 240Pu/239Pu atom ratios of 0.180 +/- 0.014 (two standard deviations), as reported by Kelley et al. (1999) for northern Hemisphere mid-latitude weapons test fallout. These results indicate that the plutonium in the attic dust is comprised of a mixture of at least two sources, one of which is 1950's-1960's nuclear weapons testing fallout. However, the lower ratio points to a contribution from an additional Pu source, having lower 240pu/239pu.

• NFS airborne contaminants have accumulated in private homes. Quote:

The findings clearly indicate that the Erwin community has been affected by atmospheric contamination (fugitive dusts, aerosols) emanating from the NFS facility. This contamination has been slowly taking place and accumulating over decades of plant operation. A similar pattern of enriched uranium and MOX contamination can be expected in other Erwin residences. Additional studies should be conducted to more closely define the geographic pattern and extent of the NFS-originating uranium and plutonium contamination.

     ​On the heels of Dr. Ketterer’s discovery that private homes had been
contaminated by NFS-sourced nuclear waste, a study of health trends in Unicoi
County was commissioned from the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP). 11
Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA, an expert in public health, analyzed the data, poured
through the statistics, and validated what moms and dads and grandparents and
parish nurses and cancer survivors knew all along: that NFS is a hazard to our
health.
     ​The findings of the Radiation and Public Health Project study are as disturbing
as they are dramatic:

• All-Cause Mortality. Until the late 1990s, Unicoi’s all-cause death rate was roughly equal to the nation. The county rate has risen since, and is now 44% above the U.S.
• Premature Mortality. Until the early 1990s, Unicoi’s premature death rate (below age 74) was roughly equal to the U.S. The county rate is now 61% above the U.S.
• Cancer Mortality. Until the early 1990s, Unicoi’s cancer death rate was below the U.S. Since then, the county rate has exceeded the U.S., and is now 39% above the U.S.
• Excess Deaths. If the earliest county-national differences had continued thereafter, a total of 1639 fewer Unicoi County residents would have died from 1974-2020. The 1639 figure can be described as "excess" deaths.

Further, Mangano’s findings confirmed research conducted in 2008 by State Epidemiologist LaShan Taylor who found rising age-adjusted death rates in Unicoi County for most of the cancers she studied -- while, at the same time, death rates for those same cancers were falling in Tennessee as a whole. Likewise, as the following chart from the Mangano study shows, Unicoi County death rates are climbing relative to the nation as a whole. 

Further, Mangano’s findings confirmed research conducted in 2008 by State
Epidemiologist LaShan Taylor who found rising age-adjusted death rates in Unicoi
County for most of the cancers she studied -- while, at the same time, death rates for
those same cancers were falling in Tennessee as a whole. 12 Likewise, as the
following chart from the Mangano study shows, Unicoi County death rates are
climbing relative to the nation as a whole.

Source: Mangano, “New Report Finds High and Rising Death Rates Near Tennessee Uranium Processing Facility”, 
Radiation and Public Health Project, 27June2023, Page 13.

     B. CONCLUSIONS, QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

• Against this backdrop, it must be said that the public’s health is not being protected from Nuclear Fuel Services’ dirty and dangerous operations.  Government at all levels – federal, state or local – has failed our families.

Comment: It is time to get real.  NFS discharges nuclear waste into the Nolichucky River through Outfall 001 and through storm water runoff -- not natural uranium. NFS processes uranium with a high enrichment of the fissile isotope U-235 to manufacture naval nuclear reactor fuel for submarines and aircraft carriers. There’s nothing natural about highly-enriched uranium or recycled/reprocessed enriched uranium or depleted uranium or the Plutonium and U-236 blowing in the wind in Erwin and into homes there. The draft finally does admit on Page R-8 that the “processed uranium” that the “facility discharges…does not have the same activity ratio as natural uranium”.
Comment: At least until after the Public Hearing on NPDES Permit TN0002038, all of the permits with the State of Tennessee listed on Page A1-1 of NFS’s renewal application should be suspended.  Something must be wrong with some or all of those 9 permits for public health to have gone so far off the rails.

• Draft TN0002038 is grossly insufficient because it maintains the status quo, does not eliminate a single pollutant, and fails to regulate the dozen or so radioactive & chemically-toxic heavy metals poured into the Nolichucky through Outfall 001 and discharged via runoff from NFS’s contaminated site.

Comment: NFS has no right to contaminate our drinking water with nuclear waste or any other toxins.  Therefore, its NPDES renewal application should be denied. 
Comment: However, if -- despite public comments in opposition -- TDEC renews TN0002038, then the permit should require NFS to close the loop within 5 years or be shut down.  A company that claims to be expert at controlling the violent atom should prove its genius by eliminating all liquid discharges through Outfall 001.
Comment: Comic relief is always welcome and arrived on Page 8 when the draft noted the necessity of “a properly implemented quality assurance program”.  Indeed!  What evidence does TDEC have that indicates the existence of a QA program at NFS? It would be interesting to know given the SCUBA Team’s scathing review.
Questions: Regarding “Right to Entry” (Draft, Page 12), does TDEC reserve the right to conduct an unannounced inspection?  Has TDEC ever sent inspectors to NFS without giving the company prior warning? What is TDEC’s definition of “reasonable times”?
Comment:  Helene flooding reached well into NFS’s facility. How many inches of water infiltrated the WWTF?  How does TDEC define “control” in Sec.2.1.7?  During shutdown, did NFS store liquid waste or continue to discharge it to the river? When did NFS resume discharging through Outfall 001?


Comment:  How can TDEC expect the public to have any confidence whatsoever in their oversight of NFS if, for example, toxicity tests are conducted only “yearly (1/yr) for Outfall 001”? (Draft, Page 23) Further, the only “Compliance Inspection Report” that I found on TDEC’s site was from December 5, 2023?  Was an inspection done in 2024? How frequently does TDEC physically go onto NFS’s site?  If its storm drains had been inspected prior to Helene, what was their condition?  How much blockage was found?  Where is that report? Could it possibly be true that TDEC hasn’t conducted a stormwater inspection since 2021? (Draft, Page R-4) NFS’s October 2, 2024 “5 Day Report—Flood Water Encroachment” claims that it “will evaluate flood prevention and storm water drainage systems”.  Was that done?  If so, where is NFS’s report back to TDEC?
Comment:  TDEC’s own definition of pollution (Draft, Page 29) compels it to regulate NFS’s discharges of radioactive chemicals because there is no safe dose. Radiation exposure always results in “potential harm”.
Comment: Page R-5 of the draft permit reports that NFS contaminated “nearby wells”.  What wells? Whose wells? Were they for residential use? Were they municipal water wells?  Was this information given to ATSDR when the Public Health Assessment was being researched? Where are these wells relative to the Railroad Well?

• Renewal of TN0002038 would be insult added to injury for the Nolichucky & for municipal drinking water customers downstream of Erwin. Helene changed everything.  “The old Nolichucky is gone”, say the whitewater rafters. My relationship to the river has also changed.  I see it as fragile now.  Debilitated. Needing healing. 

Comment: Page R-6 of the draft permit states: “Flood water was contained through appropriate emergency controls until water levels receded”.  If the muddy flood water  that collected within NFS’s walled facility (see aerial photo below) was “contained”, then NFS &/or TDEC would have had the opportunity to sample it. What analysis was done of the flood waters that partially covered the facility? Through what means did NFS contain them and did water levels recede through the site’s drainage system or just leak out under or through the west wall? 
Questions:  Has TDEC or Fish & Wildlife Service done an assessment of the health of the Appalachian Elktoe population since the flood?  If a population still exists in the Nolichucky, was it moved like the boulders & bridges? Where is the population now? Upstream of NFS?  Downstream?  When will a report on this and other endangered species be issued by TDEC?
Comment: TDEC should reject NFS’s renewal application and refuse to permit the discharge of nuclear waste into the Nolichucky because of the fragility of the Appalachian Elktoe mussel population.
Questions:  Did TDEC &/or NFS sample the floodwater that washed over the North Site and over much of NFS’s facility?  If so, what chemicals and radionuclides were present in the storm water that drained from the facility and into the Nolichucky?  How soon after the flood did TDEC inspect the shipping containers on the railroad siding next to NFS’s warehouse in the Erwin Industrial Park?  Did the floodwaters submerge the lower stack of containers – the ones sitting on the rails?  Did the shipping containers leak nuclear waste into the floodwaters and then into the Nolichucky? If yes, what contaminants entered our river?
Question: Page 4 of the draft states that sludge must not enter any surface or ground water. Years ago, sludge was spread on a farm in Horseshoe Bend. Did the Nolichucky change course there too and wash that sludge into our drinking water?

• Aerial photos and videos made available to the public after Helene’s rains passed enabled an understanding of the vastness of the flooding and its impact on NFS. The aerial photo below shows that much of the North Site was still underwater on September 28th. If you zoom in toward the red dot, it appears that muddy water covered a quarter to a third of NFS’s facility within its security walls. 

Comment: To quell concerns about contamination of the Nolichucky by NFS, these and other questions should be addressed at Public Hearings throughout our region.  
Questions:  What’s the status of the monitoring wells that were flooded?  Maps (following) from NFS’s renewal application show the “SWMU 20 Area”, “Former Recovery Area” and “Mixed Waste Storage” sites.  Did any floodwater infiltrate these areas? Did flooding reach the building where Mixed Hazardous Waste is stored? If so, what contaminants entered our drinking water source?  If EPA needs to be at the Public Hearing that addresses these questions, please ensure that the EPA officials with expertise and institutional knowledge of NFS are invited to the meeting. 

Comment:  Restoration of our confidence in our home drinking water supply is essential for our wellbeing and would be a positive “potential impact” of denying NFS an NPDES permit. Public Meetings in Jonesborough as well as Greeneville are necessary to hear concerns about the toxins released by NFS -- concerns that have reached alarming proportions since the flood.  

• The findings of the Public Health Assessment, Supplement Analysis and Mangano Study argue in favor of suspending NFS’s water permit.
  

Comment: Before the State allows NFS to pour any more hazardous chemicals into the Nolichucky, TDEC needs to analyze the human and ecological “health hazards and dose-response relationships for exposures to ‘whole’ mixtures” – a vital issue that, at the time of the research conducted by the ATSDR in Erwin, was not yet studied. 


Comment: To the extent that the chemicals that ATSDR identified as contributing to NFS’s rank as an Indeterminant Public Health Hazard persist in the environment, then past conditions persist too and NFS continues to be a Public Health Hazard. 


Comment: When the Public Health Assessment was done, PFAS chemicals had not yet become a health concern. They are now.  What, if any, PFAS chemicals does NFS discharge through Outfall 001? What, if any, PFAS chemicals are contained in NFS stormwater discharges? 


Comment: TDEC needs to develop what was unavailable to ATSDR at the time of its study here:  the “physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models” that could “predict toxicological outcomes of joint action of mixtures of…chemicals”.


Comment: Before the State allows NFS to pour any heavy metals into the Nolichucky, TDEC needs to analyze whether “interactions of heavy metals with other heavy metals or organic compounds” present hazards to human health and to aquatic ecosystems. ATSDR claimed that 20 years ago, the impact of such interactions was “unknown”. Surely, scientific knowledge has advanced regarding the “toxicological outcomes” from the “interaction of heavy metals with other heavy metals” and the “health effects of mixtures” of chemicals. 


Comment: Since it is ATSDR’s routine to do the bare minimum (especially when a polluter is still operating) and because the Supplement Analysis perpetuated the fiction that “Reference Man” is an acceptable proxy for radiation exposure of women and children, it is safe to assume that both reports grossly under-estimate the threat of NFS to the health of our community and environment. 


Comment: By the end of 2007, the health threat posed by Nuclear Fuel Services was abundantly clear even though one federal agency (ATSDR) only focused on our exposure to toxic chemicals and the other government entity (DOE/NNSA) only focused on radiation exposure.


Comment: Together, the Public Health Assessment and Supplement Analysis are damning, not only of NFS but of the regulations that purport to be protective of our health. They demonstrate that the poisonous mix of “insignificant”, “de minimis”, “minimal”, “nominal” or “trace” amounts of toxic chemicals and radioactive heavy metals released by NFS are having a catastrophic impact on our health. Nevertheless, TDEC seems to be poised to reissue a discharge permit to NFS as if this company isn’t a Public Health Hazard and as if its processes aren’t more deadly to its neighbors than any other facility doing the same nasty work. 
​

Comment: Other nuclear waste indirectly flows into the Nolichucky through stormwater drainage from NFS’s contaminated site. Both the Stormwater Permit and the NPDES Permit for NFS should be suspended until data on the contaminants contained in the NFS floodwaters are made public.

• Thank you for seeking to evaluate the impact of TN0002038 on “human health and the environment”.  In the case of NFS, should TDEC grant a permit renewal, the “potential impact of the proposed activities” is continued preparation for nuclear war.
  

BWXT/Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. is in the nuclear war business.  My understanding is that since NUMEC in Pennsylvania shut down, NFS became the sole supplier of fuel for nuclear submarines.  Without the HEU fuel produced exclusively by NFS, nuclear submarines can’t sail and nuclear missiles can’t be deployed at sea. NFS is, therefore, an essential component of the maritime prong of the nuclear triad.  In other words, NFS is a nuclear war profiteer. 
    The new process that NFS is building will purify Very Highly Enriched Uranium (VHEU) for use in new nuclear weapons.  The “Blended Low Enriched Uranium Preparation Facility” (called “BPF” or “BLEU” in the company’s renewal application) was initially built for blending down HEU from dismantled nuclear weapons into low-enriched fuel for commercial nuclear reactors – a contribution to disarmament. Now, under a half-billion-dollar contract with DOE/NNSA, NFS will be producing an essential ingredient of the bomb, contributing to the threat of nuclear war and civilization-ending annihilation. It seems justified, then, to label wastewater from NFS’s new profit center as “liquid nuclear weapons waste”.

Comment: At a time when we’re still grieving the losses of lives, homes and livelihoods destroyed by Helene flooding, while evidence of the catastrophe is everywhere, still hanging in the trees, and while bodies of two missing residents of Washington County have yet to be recovered, it is indecent of the State of Tennessee to even consider accommodating NFS so that it can process material for weapons of mass destruction and the submarines that deploy them.  Further, it is obscene that the federal government is spending a half-billion dollars preparing for nuclear war when that money is desperately needed by families whose loved ones, homes, farms & businesses were washed away by the flood. 
Comment: Because it is likely that NFS will begin processing VHEU for the bomb during the renewal period for TN0002038, I stand opposed to the issuance of an NPDES permit for Nuclear Fuel Services because it would license the production of nuclear weapons material and the further poisoning of our drinking water with nuclear weapons waste.

Finally, I again request a Public Hearing as a two-time cancer survivor who has serious concerns about TDEC’s dilution of “Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements” in the draft permit.  Specifically, the draft removes a paragraph that is an important component of the current permit:
    “The waters shall not contain substances or a combination of substances including disease-causing agents which, by way of either direct exposure or indirect exposure through food chains m, may cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction), physical deformations, or restrict or impair growth in fish or aquatic life or their offspring.” (Page 3 of 22)

Thank you for the opportunity to provide regulators with feedback on this proposed action and for recognizing that the time and effort that citizens make to engage in the process of government decision-making is an expression of genuine concern for our families’ health and wellbeing, as well as for the river we love. 

In this Jubilee Year of Hope, I look forward to our conversation at the Public Hearing.

Respectfully,
Linda C. Modica 

Footnotes:

1. The global readership of The Catholic Worker got to learn about infamous NFS through a Linda Pentz-Gunter story in the August-September 2024 edition. Entitled “Decades of Nuclear Lies”, the lead article included this quote extracted from a comment on page 31 of the NFS Public Health Assessment: 
       “I know we ate radiation straight from Mama’s garden. Our beloved little dog died of cancer.  My dad died at fifty-six with colon cancer.  Our next door neighbor died of colon cancer.in his early thirties. I had a huge lymphoma removed from my heart at the age of thirty.  My brother had kidney failure in his early thirties. My sister and I both have thyroid nodules and weird protein levels in our blood that can lead to multiple myelosis.”  Here is the entire public comment as it appears in the Public Health Assessment for NFS:
   ​   I grew up in the big green two-story house which I think is now owned by NFS. When W.R. Grace built "the plant" down where Mrs. Home's frog pond used to be, we had no idea what was in store. The security and regulations then were few and far between. As kids, we would still go down there and walk around the fence to see the stuff that leaked out of the big tanks. The ground was always wet. When we heard the alarm go off, we ran to the upstairs bedroom to watch the men in white suits run up the hill. Orange smoke came out of the smokestacks. My aunt was a secretary there and one night came and took us away from our house because "something" was about to happen "down at the plant". Never knew what. I know we ate radiation straight from Mama's garden. Our beloved little dog died of cancer. My dad died at 56 with colon cancer. Our next door neighbor died of colon cancer; I doubt she was 60. A friend and close neighbor had extensive colon cancer in his early 30's. I had a huge lymphoma removed from my heart at the age of 30. My brother had kidney failure in his early 30's. My sister and I both have thyroid nodules and weird protein levels in our blood that can lead to multiple myelosis. These all have to be watched closely. At the age of only 64, I also have an autoimmune disease that makes life difficult. People in Erwin are still brainwashed about NFS. Those that know the truth have died or moved away. My mother died of heart failure at 65. I believe her heart was broken.
2. Recommended reading:  https://www.csu.edu/cerc/researchreports/documents/InconclusiveByDesignATSDR.pdf and https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg47718/html/CHRG-111hhrg47718.htm
3. See footnote c, Table 4.2-2, p.11: “This SA’s calculated offsite population risk is equivalent to the following increased annual risk of an LCF occurring in the total offsite population: 1 chance in 357 for Y-12; 1 chance in 4545 for BWXT; 1 chance in 71 for NFS; and 1 chance in 416 for SRS.” https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/EIS-0240-SA-01-2007.pdf
4. Erwin Record, April 1, 2008, p. 4-A.
5. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/EIS-0240-SA-01-2007.pdf
6.  National Cancer Institute, Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities, Vol.1, p.4, July 1990.
7.  A rumor conveyed to me by an engineer who worked in Oak Ridge for many years.
8.  Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Phase 1, p.8, 2012.
9.  NFS reports to the NRC its discharges to our air and water in Biannual Effluent Monitoring Reports, the most current of which is for the January to June period of 2024.  A review of the past 40 years using the reports for the Jan.-June period of 1994, 2004, 2014 & 2024 shows that the Nolichucky has been contaminated by NFS with a toxic stew, including but hardly limited to Plutonium:: Am-241, Cs-137, Na-22, Np-237, Pb-212, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-239/240, Ra-224, Tc-99, Th-228, Th-230, Th-231, Th-232, Th-234, U-232, U-233/234, U-234, U-235, U-235/236, U-238.  Note that NFS was operating and discharging radioactive heavy metals into the river for decades before it installed the WWTF and that the constituents of NFS’s nuclear waste changed between each Jan.-June period.  
   Sources:  ML14287A251, ML042600037, ML14251A017 & ML24257A126.
10. https://radiation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Nuclear-Fuel-Services-w-ltrhead.pdf
11. See “New Report Finds High and Rising Death Rates Near Tennessee Uranium Processing Facility” @ https://radiation.org/new-report-finds-high-and-rising-death-rates-near-tennessee-uranium-processing-facility/.
12. LaShan Taylor, MS MPH, Northeast TN Regional Health Office, “Unicoi County Cancer Information-Incidence and Mortality Data 1990-2006 (where available), 06March2008.
13. “Whitewater rafting crew finds radically changed Nolichucky”, Six Rivers Media, 02November2024.