Thursday, May 10, 2007

Important Petition For Rulemaking Accepting Co-Signers

The Petition For Rulemaking below has been written in such a fashion as to make all citizens living within 50 miles of ANY REACTOR in America a stakeholder for said petition. Because we are on a tight time line here around Indian Point, we need those wishing to co-sign onto this Petition For Rulemaking ASAP (We are closing off the petition this coming Monday). Please share this with your email trees, and list serves. To be added to the Petition simply email your name and address to If you are a part of an organization, and want to include said organization as well, include that. Politicians, such as our own Andrew Spano, or Congressman John Hall are encouraged to sign on as well, and we encourage them to get other politicians they know on board as well. This petition co-created with Susan Shapiro, a Clearwater Board Member.

To: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555

Dear Chairman
Office of License Renewal
Michael T. Lesar
(Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch-Division of Administrative Services)

Formal Petition For Rulemaking (PRM under 10 CFR 2.802) seeking to have Entergy's License Renewal Application for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, dismissed immediately for being defacto inadequate, invalid and improperly filed application that has co-mingled and/or joined applications for two very unique and distinct reactors which are/have:

1. Owned by legally filed, two separate and distinct Limited Liability Corporations(“LLC”)
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC,
governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) and other state and federal statutes and government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission” (“SEC”). The two separate and unique LLCs both have legal and moral obligations to run and operate their business enterprises in a fashion best suited to their separate and distinct company goals.

2. Fully separate legal liabilities, duties and responsibilities. The Price Anderson Act, and the Federal Courts treat each of the LLC's as a unique and separate entity. For example, either Indian Point 2 or Indian Point 3, as a separate legal entities, could file for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and the protections it affords, with there being no legal bearing and/or effect on the other LLC's business dealings and/or day to day operational and business readiness. Further, under 10 CFR rules and regulations permit either LLC's reactor to continue operation, even if a significant nuclear incident required IMMEDIATE SAFSTOR and/or decommissioning of the other.

3. Separate NRC licenses are individually, not jointly, issued to and held by each separate and unique, legally separate LLC. Each of these separate and unique NRC licenses is held separately accountable to the standards found in the 10 CFR rules and regulations.

In fact and deed the NRC itself clearly defines the separateness of the licenses/licensees in their public meetings held with members of the stakeholder community. Separate inspectors from the individual reactors give SEPARATE REPORTS.

Regional Director Sam Collins points out that each reactor has separate and unique difficulties. Simply put two identical cars are licensed individually and are not alike, have distinct VIN numbers do not perform identically, and have separate issues dependent upon the separate vehicle owners that drive and maintain said cars. Like cars each reactors is distinct when owned by different LLC, are different ages and are operated by different staffs.

4. Each separate LLC/License holder, and their UNIQUE and separate reactor are very different, with different managing styles and teams, as has been acknowledged by both the NRC and Entergy. Each reactor and LLC have different infrastructure problems and aging issues, and even different labeling and use criteria for the same and/or similar individual component hardware parts that make up the whole of their separate reactors.

Request For Action

Sherwood Martinelli, stakeholder in the Indian Point 2 and 3 License Renewal Process and living within three miles of the aging [1], brittling [2] and fatally flawed reactors [3] known as Indian Point Reactors 1, 2 and 3 and the individual, organizational, and governmental petitioners (co-signers/interveners) identified on the attached page(s) (collectively, Petitioners) who live and/or work within the 10 or 50 mile radius Evacuation Zones established for Indian Point and/or other reactor communities hereby respectfully request, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and 2.202 and 2.802, that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission take the following immediate actions as their governance allows:

1. For the reasons stated above, reject and deny, on its face, the jointly filed and combined License Renewal Application for Indian Point Reactor's 2 and 3, as they are separately owned, operated and licensed reactors held by separate and independent Limited Liability Corporations (LLC's).

2. Instruct each separate and independent LLC/License holder that they will need to file completely separate stand alone License Renewal Applications that prove on its own merits, and with the infrastructure of the individual plant, conclusively meets all necessary requirements of local, state and federal government rules and regulations necessary to operate their stand alone nuclear reactor as a fully independent facility for the 20 year period they would seek for license extension/renewal.

LLCs cannot pick and choose when they will use benefit from being separate LLC'S,† and when at their sole discretion and convenience† they would rather benefit from co-mingling the two LLC's to act as one corporation.† It is unequitable to consolidate the relicensing process for two distinct reactors with distinct issues.

3. To avoid the appearance and/or actual fact of collusion between NRC and the nuclear industry, to eliminate the appearance/reality that the nuclear industry was allowed to write/create its own license renewal rules and regulations, abandon use of the NEI's NEI 95-10 which, almost word for word, was adopted into NRC's guidelines as the standard by which license renewal applications would be judged. This biased and skewed set of Industry Guidelines adopted by the NRC is prejudiced in favor of licensees, leaving host communities powerless in the process, and forced into a position of servitude for 20 years while serious safety and security concerns do not even get addressed in the license renewal process.


1. Each license is held by a separate LLC. As such, each reactor and its licensee is a unique and separate issue, owned by a unique and distinct LLC, with each having its own unique set of legal rights, and legal responsibilities. A joint license renewal application clouds the legal rights, duties and responsibilities for both the LLC, and for the stakeholders, should it become necessary to pursue legal remedy.

2. A co-mingled and jointly filed license renewal application creates and onerous situation for public stakeholders. Minor distinctions and issues between the licenses and their respective reactors, are quite complex. Only by separating the license applications can stakeholders adequately understand, and thus adequately address concerns about each unique license and reactor.

3. By the NRC Embracing the industry (N.E.I.) standards for license renewal, with inadequate public input into the creation of the rules regarding the process has defacto abridged the rights of host communities, and violates due process and equal protection rights.

4. The NRC cannot abridge stakeholders rights, due process and equal protection rights, in rushing to accept a legally improper license application that co-mingles two LLC renewals into one, in order to save the licensee time and money.

5. Further the NRC must consider in any license application that NEPA considerations, including but not limited to, the public right to have security issues fully addressed, including planes flying into spent fuel pools, and terrorists attacking key components of the reactor itself.

In light of the recent foiled terrorist attack on Fort Dix, wherein the terrorists were in the processing of securing one of the very weapons that the NRC itself wrongfully removed from the DBT, at the request of the NEI, against staff advice, under the guise of saving licensees money.

The constitution protects our rights to redress. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requires the NRC included terrorist attacks in it's siting and relicensing standards. To date, the NRC has ignored the court decision. We hereby request that all NEPA consideration and terrorism and evacuation capabilities by included as considerations in the relicensing process.

Respectfully Submitted,


Sherwood Martinelli
351 Dyckman
Peekskill, New York 10566

Susan Shapiro
21 Perlman Drive
Spring Valley, NY 10977
Remy Chevalier
25 Newtown Turnpike
Weston, CT 06883

Samuel E. Davis
185 Lake Drive
Lake Peekskill, NY 10537

Barbara Jacobs
76 Dimond Ave.
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567

Judy Allen
24 Seifert Lane
Putnam Valley, NY 10579

Sally Shaw
100 River Rd.
Gill, MA 01354

Maureen Ritter
46 Campbell Ave
Suffern, NY 10901

Dorice Madronero
Regis Ct.
Suffern, NY 10901

Pamela Slater
7 Kensington Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583

Dan Doniger
53 W. 111th Street, Apt. 4W
New York, NY 10026

Gary Shaw
9 Van Cortlandt Place
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

Lucillen Weinstat
8 Halfmoon Rd.
Beacon, NY 12508

PO Box 134
Croton on Hudson, NY

Individuals CrotonCIP Steer
signed on as individuals are:

Mary Cronin
Christine Puente
Batya Halpern

Rockland FUSE (Friends United for Sustainable Energy)
21 Perlman Drive
Spring Valley, NY 10977

Ann Harbeson
5 Valley Trail
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

Mary Cronin
201 Cleveland Drive
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

Christine Puente
31 Battery Place
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

Joseph Biber and Batya Halpern
204 Cleveland Drive
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

Michel Lee
265 Madison Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583

Elise Levine Cooper
62 Taylor Road
Mt. Kisco, NY 10549

Mark Jacobs
46 Highland Drive
Garrison, NY 10524

Mary Cronin
201 Cleveland Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Batya Halpern
204 Cleveland Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Joe Biber
204 Cleveland Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Ann Harbeson
5 Valley Trail
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Christine Puente
31 Battery Place
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520

Allegra Dengler
60 Judson Avenue
Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

No comments: