World War 1, World War 2... World War 3? Do we really want an ALL NUCLEAR NAVY?

Uninvited guest: A Chinese Song Class submarine, like the one that sufaced by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY
10th November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".

The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels.

Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.

"It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

Source:
Daily Mail

(Thanks to Patrick DonEgan electricvehicles@mac.com for this item)

IPSEC Wrongfully Applauds Governor Spitzer In Press Release

Opened my mail this morning to find an IPSEC press release in it that is posted below. Problem is, think IPSEC is being more than naive if they fail to see through Governor Spitzer's carefully laid smoke screen aimed at keeping Indian Point open, while giving him political cover with the grassroots community in opposition to said plant. He in his interview with the Journal News once again trotted out the same old platitudes, followed by the big caveat that gets him off the hook.

Indian Point is not safe, Indian Point should be shut down, (pay close attention) but not until we have replacement power for it. Would be interesting to see the Journal News do their job as journalists, and ask the governor the all important follow up question when he trots out that tired old pony, which is, "What additional energy onto the grid, and/or energy conservation do you plan on counting towards that replacement energy you say needs to be there?"

ACE New York whose membership is heavily infested with people associated with the nuclear industry has already stated their 3000 megawatts if energy onto the grid are in addition to, not a replacement for Indian Point...how convenient. Suppose if the state mandated everyone was to use energy efficient lighting (including retail stores and malls), that said conservation savings would also not count in Governor Spitzer's mind? It's a classic example of a Three Card Monty scam...where's the energy that counts towards closing Indian Point? It's a classic con of the voters...re-elect me, I did everything in my power to close down the trouble plagued Indian Point facility, but it was out of my hands.

Governor Spitzer, the State Attorney General and DEC have all the tools/cards they need to close down Indian Point. Litigation, and a denial of their discharge permit closes the book on this putrid facility. OH! Just one little wrinkle in the ointment...could it be, that the state of New York does not want to go up against Entergy and Indian Point because they OWN the land (and maybe the discharge canal itself)that Indian Point uses to discharge pollutants into our dearly loved Hudson River? For those now scratching their heads, read Entergy's Environmental Report attached to their Application for License Renewal.

So, IPSEC's press release applauding Governor Spitzer is more than premature, it is simply misplaced. It's like applauding Congressmen Maurice Spitzer and John Hall for trotting out their tired legislation calling for and ISA when they know it is not ever going anywhere...it's a smoke and mirrors cover to protect them from their constituents.

IPSEC Applauds Governor Spitzer

The Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition applauds Governor Eliot Spitzer for his clear understanding that "it just doesn't make sense" to have a nuclear power plant at Indian Point in Buchanan, New York. With 8% of the population of this country living within a 50 mile radius of the plant a radiological event at the plant could have consequences that would dwarf those of September 11.

The governor expressed this opinion in a meeting with the editorial board staff of The Journal News and it was reported in that paper last Wednesday. He also stressed the need to have alternative sources of energy in place to replace the power. While this is an important step in planning for closure, the Coalition would like to remind the Governor, and others, that electricity is a commodity that is bought and sold. We live in free market economy that has worked very effectively to create an electricity surplus in New York State.

Right now Indian Point is contributing slightly more than 2,000 MW to that mix. As long as this amount of electricity is being pumped out, there is little room in the market for additional companies to supply more electricity. Once closure is announced it becomes possible for other utilities to make plans to fill the gap and enhance their profits.

That's the way the market works and so there is every reason to expect that businesses will find a way to make a profit once the opportunity presents itself. While we do need to plan ahead, there is no need to count out 2,000MW's.

The chief obstacles to building new power plants are siting and proximity to transmission lines. Most communities do not want a power plant in their backyard and local opposition can still add years of delay to beginning construction. These problems do not exist at Indian Point. The site is already zoned for a power plant and the local community welcomes it, Transmission lines are obviously in place. This makes Indian Point an extremely valuable piece of real estate, no matter how the electricity is generated there.

When other nuclear plants in the U.S. have closed, the electricity has been replaced. A nuclear plant in Fort St. Vrain, Colorado was converted to a gas plant. When the Rancho Seco Nuclear Plant in California was closed by a public vote, "replacement energy" came from an efficiency and renewable power program which achieved a sizable reduction in the need for power.

The undeniable fact is that Indian Point will have to be closed. The question is not if, but when. Most importantly, when the energy market knows that Indian Point will not be re licensed, they will have time to plan intelligently for power options that are safer, cleaner, and far less dangerous from a security standpoint than an aging nuclear plant with a long history of safety and security problems.

When you couple the fact that other means of production can replace Indian Point at the same site, with other elements such as:

the governor's vigorous support for wind energy and other alternatives

a conservation program that has as a goal holding usage flat while continuing economic growth through efficiency

improvements to the grid itself that make it easier to move electricity over longer distances

it becomes apparent that closing an aging nuclear power plant and replacing it with a different kind of electricity generation is a small piece in the much larger puzzle of New York's energy landscape.

Certainly it makes a lot more sense than continuing to operate a facility that poses a risk to so many people and generates highly radioactive waste that must be stored on site.

We can replace the power, we can't replace the people.

Simpsons Movie-National Day of Action

Simpsons Movie-National Day of Action

Excellent (imagine it being said sinisterly and with hands in prayer position, fingers tapping rhythmically)

What: National Day of Action - to oppose nuclear power- to expose safety/security issues in the industry- to alert residents of possible new reactors.

The Action:
- Depending on resources activists can: postcard or circulate a petition or collect names (recruitment) to "learn more or be alerted about upcoming actions, events, dems.
- All can: leaflet with factsheets about NP issues, specific concerns around local reactor or potential reactor ideal-If there is interest in media attention, activists should make signs.
- using icons such as the 3-eyed fish or series quotables.

When:
Friday, July 27th
Opening night of the Simpsons Movie
45 mins before movie time.
Directly after (when people get it)

Who: state PIRG canvassers, state Sierra Club activists, PC activists, local grassroots anti-nuke groups.

Where: targeted cinemas in states with reactors and/or face a potential new license.

Top 12
Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Texas, New York, Vermont, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Miss., Pennsylvania...

Background: The Simpsons Series has routinely satirized safety issues surrounding nuclear power plants. If the town of Springfield is supposed to represent "anytown USA", then the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant could be " any reactor in the USA". It is rumored- though Matt Groening's PR have not confirmed - that the SNPP was intended to mock the ill-fated Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon.

The Movie plot: Homer mistakenly pollutes the river with toxic waste from the power plant, he loses his job and forces evacuation from Springfield. Even though we don't know how the film plays out, it may be safe to say that NP is not shown in a favorable light.

Please let me know if you are interested in participating in the action or need help coordinating
Thanks,

Allison Fisher
Organizer- Energy Program
Public Citizen
(202) 454-5176

Article Claims Public Confusion on UK Nuclear Future

The Shielding In Place Enforcement Squad

According to an article I found today, the United Kingdom is wanting to blame waning support for a new generation of nuclear power plants on information overload confusing the populace. I would make a second guess...as the old adage says, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The NEI and the entire nuclear industry have spent hundreds of millions lobbying the government, and trotting out a public propaganda campaign of enormous proportions...having watched the NRC wrongfully relicense (rubber stamp) dangerous aging reactors here in America, waking up to the reality that the trillions of gallons of heated (105 degrees) and irradiated water being dumped into our lakes, rivers and the ocean, the world is beginning to wake up to the reality that NUCLEAR IS NOT GREEN, and that the nuclear industry is trying to pull a fast one on us as they attempt to further rape the world in the name of corporate profits.

It takes a village to raise a child, it takes a movement of millions of people to save communities from the dangers of playing host to a aging reactor waiting like a ticking time bomb to kill us all. Perhaps it is this reality that sees the NRC trying to rush through as many license renewal application as possible in as short a time as possible...they want to make it all too late when we finally do wake up to their lies.

Public confused over nuclear energy debate
By Rebecca Bream and Ed Crooks

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e1c5f2fc-1494-11dc-88cb-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=34c8a8a6-2f7b-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.htm

Published: June 7 2007 03:00 Last updated: June 7 2007 03:00

The debate over how to meet Britain's future energy needs has heightened confusion about nuclear power - reducing support for new reactors, research published yesterday suggests.

At 35 per cent, support for building new atomic power stations to replace those being phased out continues to outweigh opposition (29 per cent), but has fallen from 41 per cent in 2004.

Support for new reactors rose strongly between 2001 and 2005, according to the survey by Ipsos Mori. Opposition fell at the start of the decade, but has remained constant since 2004. The study found that rather than cross over to the "No" camp, more nuclear supporters are moving into the middle ground, and say they no longer know what to think.

Robert Knight, at Ipsos Mori, said the recent debate on the future of UK energy policy and whether to build new reactors had led to greater public confusion on the issue of nuclear power.

"It's a case of too much information introducing uncertainty," he said.

Opponents of new reactors cited nuclear waste disposal as the main cause for concern, followed by the dangers of radiation and the risk of nuclear accidents and terrorist attacks.

Supporters of new nuclear plants gave security of electricity supply and the need to cut carbon emissions as their main reasons.

Men tended to be more in favour of nuclear power, with 53 per cent backing new reactors, 23 per cent against and 24 per cent undecided. Only 27 per cent of women said they supported new reactors, with 35 per cent against and 38 per cent undecided.

The research found that one reason for confusion was a general lack of trust in politicians, the media and the nuclear industry.

Congressman Hall's strange bed fellow

Now, why is our fiercely anti-nuclear leader, Congressman Jon Hall, on the stage at NoNukes in 1980... on the campaign trail with Bonnie Raitt, a founder of Musicians United for Safe Energy, tirelessly working to shut down Indian Point, suddenly on the fence and in league with Congressman Chris Shays over the reasons for an Independent Safety Assessment, when Congressman Shays is openly pro-nuclear? Isn't that letting the fox in the hen house?



From:
Congressman Christopher Shays

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007

Subject:
Congressman Christopher Shays
May 11, 2007

Thank you for contacting me expressing support for closing the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in Buchanan, New York. I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me, as well as your patience in awaiting my reply.

Although I do not support closing Indian Point, I believe it is imperative we make security for the plant as safe and comprehensive as possible. For this reason, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 994, which would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct an Independent Safety Assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.

You may be interested to know, in the 108th Congress, I joined members of the New York congressional delegation calling on the NRC to temporarily suspend Indian Point operations pending an independent review of the New York and Indian Point emergency preparedness plans.

Although Indian Point operations were not temporarily suspended, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and NRC approved the emergency preparedness plans, I determined a congressional review of nuclear power plant facility security was still needed.

As Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, National Security Subcommittee, I have held several hearings to measure the scope and pace of post-9/11 safeguard improvements in and around reactor sites such as Indian Point.

I held an oversight hearing on April 4, 2006, entitled "Nuclear Security: Has the NRC Strengthened Facility Standards Since 9/11?" in which we asked specifically how the NRC and the nuclear power industry are maintaining readiness against a changing threat.Public safety, public health and the protection of critical infrastructure are all factors that need to be part of the discussion.

At the request of the committee the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted an in-depth examination of the process used by the NRC to update the Design Basus Threat (DBT) standard, the industry response to new security mandates and the rigor of inspections and drills used to test security force readiness.The GAO findings painted a decidedly mixed picture of nuclear power security.

Substantial improvements have been made since September 11, 2001, and since adoption of the new DBT in 2003. Buffer zones have been augmented where possible, barriers have been thickened, detection equipment installed or upgraded. Protective forces have been enlarged and armed with new weapons and smarter strategies.

But, according to the GAO, it may be too early to claim success since fewer than half the 65 NRC-regulated sites have been tested against a live adversary in what are called force-on-force exercises. And those tested did not always perform as well as expected, even in necessarily artificial, fully noticed drills conducted in broad daylight. GAO also found that stronger security standards did not necessarily mean the NRC had sufficiently fortified itself against the dangers of an overly cozy relationship with the industry.

While still drafting the new Design Basis Threat, the Commission solicited outside comments, creating the appearance industry was influencing the threat assessment process with extraneous cost concerns. the regulated should never even appear to be able to dictate security standards to the regulator. But this is more than a question of appearance. Only the rigor and independence of the NRC process guarantee the integrity of the product.

Nevertheless, the Commission continues to resist the GAO recommendation to develop explicit criteria for decisions altering DBT standards.I believe the NRC can do more to prevent potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants and will continue to actively monitor them to ensure they do not lower their threat standards. Please do not hesitate to contact my office again. Because mail is delayed by Anthrax screening, e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and in-person visits are the most effective ways to communicate with my office.

I also have a periodic e-newsletter and would be happy to send it to you. To request this e-newsletter, and for other information, please visit my website at www.house.gov/shays.

Sincerely,
Christopher Shays
Member of Congress
rep.shays@mail.house.gov
202/225-5541

Demand That Government Gives Us Truth on Human Health and Safety Risks Regarding Indian Point

Picture of DTRA Mobile Sheltering Device For Medical Staff...where is OURS?

The government has its own agenda where nuclear energy is concerned, and from what we can tell, they stand fully ready to DUPE the public in their quest for their own selfish goals...problem is,they are playing Russian Roulette with our safety. Below is a letter we have just sent out too various agencies of our Federal Government, and we recommend those concerned with Indian Points continued operation use it as a model to create inquiry letters of your own.

Dear Dr. James Tegnelia
Major General Ramdal R Castro
DTRA Office of Inspector General
FOIA Office for DTRA, NRC, DHS,FEMA
Chairman of NRC
Secretary-Department of Homeland Security (or lack thereof.)
FEMA
Secretary-Department of Energy
Hugo Teufel III


My name is Sherwood Martinelli, a citizen stakeholder living within three miles of a nuclear facility owned by the commercial enterprise Entergy, and commonly known as Indian Point. It is common knowledge in our area, that in the case of a nuclear incident and/or terrorist attack, that the NRC (as is outlined in various official documents including their fatally flawed DBT) have the following expectations, or lack thereof:

1. In the case of a fast moving event at the nuclear facility, NRC's Sam Collins has admitted that evacuation of citizens would not be workable/possible, and citizens would be sheltered in place. Further, the various governmental agencies charged with Emergency Response have admitted this as well in establishing a new wedge policy wherein only a 2.5 mile pie shaped wedge determined to be MOST AT RISK would be evacuated in a fast moving nuclear event with all others ordered sheltering in place.
2. NRC, and it's licensee would rely heavily on first responders, law enforcement and military aid in dealing with the situation. In the case of Indian Point, the inadequate military base just up route nine, and perhaps West Point would be called into action to provide aid, or in the case of a terrorist attack military support and fire power.

Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, NRC and various agencies at local, state and federal levels have attempted to fabricate a public belief that we are safe from the effects of a radioactive event being sheltered in place, and in fact and deed the NRC has used that very criteria to justify in part their decision not to include evacuation plans, and terrorist attacks on the facility in their decision making process during the license renewal application process for their licensees for the aforementioned Indian Point reactors. They have coupled this reasoning with flawed and biased modeling written by the nuclear licensees lobbyist (NEI)that shows the likelihood of an attack on a nuclear reactor is so small as to be almost mathematically impossible. Assorted information on other government sites categorically refute these false assumptions by the NRC and NEI.

Living in New York, having been down in New York (not at Ground Zero) on Sept 11, 2001 I was/am more than skeptical, and so have done my due diligence in conducting my own investigation/research into matters directly and/or indirectly associated with nuclear incidents, terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, and evacuation plans, specifically giving careful attention to the now preferred method of protecting human health and safety through sheltering in place during a catastrophic event. No more damning condemnation of the shortcomings of shielding in place could be found than the CDC report that discusses the level of protection for the average citizen who has been ordered to shelter in place. For a citizen sheltered in their stick frame and/or brick home in a concrete basement, the protection level is only 40 percent shielding from Radioactive fallout. For those living in residential structures with no basement, said level of protection drops to a devastatingly alarming ten percent.

Armed with this disturbing news, I began visiting a host of government sites, and found some more forthcoming than others. For instance, if you visit Condi Rice's Department of State site dealing with these issues, they state sheltering in place in the event of a Terrorist Dirty Bomb explosion and/or attack on a nuclear facility could, in a worst case scenario, last for a period of weeks, not days as is claimed and all but codified by the NRC.

Further, each for their own reasons, it became apparent in my research, that the DOD, DOE, NRC,NEI, the Nuclear Industry and various other corporate and governmental agencies under the guise of National Interest, and National Security have been intimately, if not incestuously involved in pushing/moving forward the agenda of a Nuclear Renaissance both here in America and abroad with GNEP being used as placebo to assure us as citizens that our Federal Government is finally coming up with a plan to deal with the waste streams from the nuclear industry (both military and civilian). It (GNEP) at best is good intentions gone astray, and at worse, a governmental boondoggle that leaves WMD's (leaking spent fuel pools, and aging failing reactors) inadequately guarded and protected in and around MAJOR (emphasis added) population centers, while the NRC, blindly ignoring basic truths continues the wrongful rubber stamping of reactor license renewal applications, while turning a blind eye to known public health and safety concerns. For instance, the population living within a 50 mile radius of Indian Point exceeds 21 million citizens, and in the case of a significantly nuclear event at Indian Point, some estimates say we could see a immediate death toll running into the tens of thousands...that risk in the name of a Nuclear Renaissance is unacceptable, as is the inadequate protections of shielding citizens in place.

It also became apparent as I looked into these related issues, that First Responders, including members of our military tagged to be a part of the response team dealing with a National Emergency such as a significant nuclear incident/accident (as almost happened when the truck carrying nuclear materials from Japan tipped over on I-95 in North Carolina-yes, the story got partially out before and exclusion zone was thrown up) and/or a terrorist attack at a nuclear facility are being told a different truth than members of the general public, being given a different set of instructions regarding what they need in the way of equipment to be adequately protected than what is being distributed out to members of the general public. The polar opposite realities are not both possible, one or the other is a lie.

Today I called up the DTRA after doing some extensive reading on their web site, and examining their various and assorted course offerings and asked your spokesperson, a reticent and stubborn Mr. Gaines a very straightforward question, which he (like all other agencies I have spoken to) stealthily avoided giving a direct answer to. If first responders need to wear super protective clothing , self containing breathing apparatus, and a dosimeter device in responding to a nuclear event, would civilians ordered to be sheltered in the affected area require that same level of equipment/protection to adequately protect their own health and safety? If medical staff and personal working in a nuclear fallout area need to be protected by being placed in one of the self contained sheltering vehicles such as the one pictured on your web site, wouldn't citizens in the exclusion zone need a similarly personal shelter to have adequate protection of their health and safety?

Mr. Gaines tried to avoid answering the question with a dodge when he stated, "Our agency is concerned with, charged with aiding members of the DOD in performing their task as relates to terrorist threat reduction, or aiding them (DOD) in responding to a nuclear event if our help is requested from the DHS, so I cannot speak to issues of civilian protection. Undeterred, I took a different tack by rephrasing the question. Would you send your agency's personnel into an nuclear incident area without the equipment mandated and/or recommended by your agency's guidelines, to which he replied, "We don't deploy personnel without adequate protective gear. (Iraq aside?) I pointed out, that was not the question asked, at which point he got belligerent, and said he was not willing, could not go there...as in truthfully and honestly answering an American citizen stakeholder's straight forward question?

As a result of this government run around, and deliberate avoidance in honestly answering a stakeholder citizen's questions, I am taking the step of formalizing my inquiries in this email. As citizen stakeholders living near a nuclear facility, we should know the full extent of the risks we are facing when government asks/demands that we play host to a nuclear facility. As allowed in the broadest interpretation of your agency's rules and regulations (individually and/or collectively) this letter is to be interpreted as A) inquiry, B) FOIA request, and C) and allegation. I would like the following questions asked, and as a part of the answer, please include any and all underlying lying documents used in formulating the answer/response, including citations of law, inter/intra office memos, emails, studies and or reports.

1. If first responders need to wear super protective clothing , self containing breathing apparatus, and a dosimeter device in responding to a nuclear event, would civilians ordered to be sheltered in the affected area require that same level of equipment/protection to adequately protect their own health and safety? If not, please explain with specifics why not, and why your agency finds these differing levels of personal protection acceptable.

2. If medical staff and personal working in a nuclear fallout area need to be protected by being placed in one of the self contained sheltering vehicles, such as the one pictured on DTRA web site, wouldn't citizens in the exclusion zone need a similar personal shelter to have adequate protection of their health and safety? If not, please explain with specifics why not, and why your agency finds these differing levels of personal protection acceptable.

3. Would you send your agency's personnel into a nuclear incident area without the equipment mandated and/or recommended by your agencies guidelines? If not, please in detail explain your decision, specifically identifying the risk that said personal would/could face in said potentially contaminated area if they did not have these adequate health and safety protections and equipment.

4. Please identify any and all known safety, security and structural concerns/problems you are aware of, and/or are researching/examining as relates to the continued safe operation and protection of America's nuclear facilities, including Commercial Nuclear Reactors and their leaking spent fuel pools. Please specifically identify known and/or suspected risks to public health and safety in the event of a nuclear accident and/or successful terrorist attack at a nuclear facility, with special attention given to the public risk regarding commercial nuclear reactors.

5. What inadequacies and/or potential problems is the government aware of as relates to A) community evacuation plans, and B) sheltering in place in the case of a nuclear incident and/or terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, and what levels of potential loss and/or harm have been identified (human life, long term health effects, infrastructure loss and/or contamination, financial losses, specifically as affects private citizens since the Price Anderson act leaves us with no form of protecting our assets in the case of a nuclear event and/or a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility.

As a citizen stakeholder living within 3 miles of a governmentally licensed and policed nuclear facility that has applied for a 20 year license renewal, and should be entitled by law to honest and forthright answers to these questions, so that I can fully and completely evaluate the true risk I and my community are being asked to take in continuing to play host to two aging, failing nuclear reactors that are already threatening human health and/or the environment as they leak strontium 90 and tritium into both the area ground water, and the Hudson river.

Respectfully Submitted

Sherwood Martinelli
351 Dyckman
Peekskill, New York 10566

For those activists receiving a copy of this letter...please feel free to forward this to your elected officials, and/or other activists involved in this issue.

This letter also being posted to the Green Nuclear Butterfly blog...please feel free to distribute it to your list serves.

Official Request for Fee Waivers:

For the following reasons, Sherwood Martinelli requests a full and complete waiver of any and all fees associated with the FOIA components of this document.

1. Purpose-To ascertain full risks I, as a stakeholder face in living near a nuclear facility, and distribute said information to the public so they as well can understand their risks as we face the potential re-licensing of the failing Indian Point Nuclear Reactors. Said distribution will occur has occurred through my NRC recognized advocacy group, GNB (Green Nuclear Butterfly) at public events, such as last month's NRC open house in our community where the NRC gave us a presentation table, as well as our blog.

2. The information and answer requested in this document will be used first to educate the public TRUTHFULLY about the risks associated with specifically, Indian Point, and additionally said information will be used as is practical in our plans to act as and intervener in Entergy's license renewal application process.

3. If the information gained reinforces our/my initial findings regarding public safety as relates to a fast nuclear event (terrorist attack of nuclear facility), there is a probabilistic chance that the members of the General Public in and around the host community of Indian Point will become far more active and plugged into the regulatory process, and in demanding the closure of said facility.

4. We currently interact with, communicate (through our blog, public outreach, and phone) daily with over 150 people...on average, 80 percent of these contacts are disseminating our material for the first time. As the license renewal process moves forward, we have the very real capability (thanks to the Internet) of having direct involvement with potentially millions of stakeholders within 50 miles of Indian Point who oppose its license renewal application.

5. As answered before, we distribute this information at public events, formal NRC events/meetings, and via the Internet, and do not charge a fee for our distributed information.

6. My private interests in this information are only as a stakeholder living within 3 miles of a nuclear event.

For these reasons, it is requested that any and all fees associated with the FOIA components of this document be waved in their entirety.

Sherwood Martinelli

Indian Point Contaminating Buchanan Sewers-What's Next?

As is par for the course, both Steets of Entergy (Indian Point) and Neil Sheehan of the NRC were quick to rush out to the press assuring the public that the tritium leaking into the town of Buchanan's sewer system was NOTHING TO BE ALARMED ABOUT. Even Patrick Moore tried to defend Indian Point (which he is being paid handsomely to do we might add), pawning off the leak as minor, and of no significance, while trying to implement the nuclear industry's buzz word of sustainability, meant to replace renewable. You are a sly one Mr. Grinch. The reality though, is this is a serious one, and radioactive materials contaminating sewage treatment facilities is one that the NRC is all too familiar with, and one where NRC's past actions have seen them ALWAYS siding with their licensee.

For those not up on the issue, the real issue is simple...though the NRC and it's licensees do not understand how it happens, radioactive materials that find their way into sewage treatment plants end up concentrating together, thus CONTAMINATING a facility to a point where it (not the licensee) is in violation of both the NRC and US EPA's release criteria. Once this occurs, the NRC and other regulatory bodies (EPA, Health Department) go after the sewage treatment facility demanding REMEDIATION. As much as Buchanan loves to defend Indian Point at all costs, have they asked themselves where the remediation dollars are going to come from when this happens to their facility? You can bet money it will not be Entergy, or their separately owned LLC's picking up the tab.

If NRC or the state of Ohio does not approve on-site disposal of the contaminated soil the cost of off-site disposal could exceed $3 billion.

To address the problem of radiative materials’ concentrating in sludge and ash, NRC has revised its regulation to reduce the concentration of radioactivity that licensees can discharge to treatment plants. However, because of uncertainty about how the radioactive materials concentrate during the sewage treatment process, NRC does not know how effective this solution will be.

The health implications of the exposure of treatment plant workers and the public to contaminated sludge, ash, and related by-products are unknown because neither NRC nor EPA knows (1) how much radioactive material may be in these products and (2) how these products might affect people.

According to the district, NRC has consistently taken the position that unless it can prove the manufacturer exceeded the discharge limits set forth in 10 C.F.R. part 20.303, there is no action NRC can take against the manufacturer. NRC maintains that the district is responsible for any and all costs associated with the remediation of the site since the district is in possession of the contamination.

District officials believe that passing on the costs of the cleanup to its ratepayers is unfair, and they are taking action to keep this from happening. The district filed a petition (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. part 2.206) on March 3,1993, requesting that NRC modify the manufacturer’s NRC license to require it to (1) assume all costs resulting from the release of cobalt-60 that has been deposited at the Southerly plant and (2) decontaminate the sewer.

The above passage is not Green Nuclear Butterfly's opinion, but words taken right out of the government PDF referenced at the beginning of this article. At every turn we are hearing about another NEW LEAK at Indian Point, and Neil Sheehan,in the LOHUD article written by Noreen O'Donnell, states, "the contamination is believed to be concentrated in and around the reactor structures on the site." In other words that Neil Sheehan and the NRC are well versed in not using, the pipes, steam pipes,valves and the reactor core itself are LEAKING, beginning to break apart due to aging, embrittlement and degradation issues associated with and ancient reactor. In short, Indian Point is literally breaking apart at its seams (failing weld joints) and the longer the plant operates, the greater risk to the public health and safety.

The old Kenny Rogers song warns, "that you have to know when to hold em, and know when to fold em, and the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep." There is a certain almost prophetic message there for Buchanan. They as a community have benefited and grown as a result of their long term tax arrangement with Indian Point and its various tenants/owners. The question is, "Has the time come for Buchanan too get up from the table and walk away?"

Wake Up People-Intentionally Or Not, Hall, Hinchey and Lowey Blowing Smoke Up Our Arse

Some on the IPSEC list are all in a tither and ready to wet themselves, because Congressman Hall and his posse have introduced legislation that would hold old reactors like Indian Point to the same standards as new reactors...WHO CARES? Simply put, the legislation is smoke and mirrors, a Dog and Pony show of the worst kind. Hall, Hinchey and Lowey all know the bill is going NOWHERE. (see this link) No such bill has any chance of passing in this Congress, zero chance of being signed into law by Nuclear President George Bush...in short, it's a publicity stunt, meant to get their names and faces into the media so they can claim in the 2008 election season that, "THEY DID ALL THAT THEY COULD FOR US." Stop buying into pablum folks. If this political group of the Three Muskateers were serious, and had an real political balls, they would file a group Petition For Rule Making that put everything on the table. Trust me, a Petition For Ruling Making signed by these three, Senators Schumer and Clinton, and our Governor Spitzer would shake the earth....shows your balls folks, or get the hell out of office.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Josh Zembik (Lowey)

May 4, 2007
202-225-6506

Meaghan Smith (Hall)
202-225-5441

Jeff Lieberson (Hinchey)
202-225-1265

Lowey, Hall, Hinchey Introduce Legislation to Raise Standards for Indian Point

Bill Would Require Old Power Plants to Meet Same Standards as New Plants

Washington, DC - U.S. Representatives Nita Lowey (D-NY18), John Hall (D-NY19) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY22) yesterday introduced legislation that would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to make sure nuclear power plant re-licensing takes into account the current environment in which the plant operates. The Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act of 2007 would ensure that older power plants applying for license renewals, such as Indian Point, must meet the same stringent standards as new plants applying for the first time.

"If Indian Point were proposed today, the community would be up in arms that a nuclear plant would be built in such a heavily populated area," said Lowey. "Yet these plants are allowed to continue to operate without any consideration of how an area has changed over the past several decades. We need to reform the re-licensing process to take these changes into account."

"Indian Point's location in one of the nation's most densely populated areas creates a significant threat to public safety, and it's impossible to believe that a nuclear plant could be built in its location today," said Congressman Hall. "If Indian Point hopes to be allowed to operate for another 20 years, it is absolutely necessary that it can meet and exceed the same stringent safety standards required of new plants. For a plant with an operational record as poor as Indian Point's, it would be unacceptable for the NRC to hold it to any less rigorous standard. This legislation will help to make sure that no corners are cut in the re-licensing process, and I am proud to be a cosponsor."

"A lot of things have changed at Indian Point since the last time a license was issued for the plant and all of that must came into play as part of the license renewal process," Hinchey said. "Given that Indian Point is plagued with unplanned shutdowns, has experienced a recent fire, does not have properly installed emergency sirens, and is leaking radioactive material into the Hudson River, there is clearly a lot that needs to be addressed. It is 2007, not 1987 and Entergy must be held to much more rigorous standards in the re-licensing process. If FERC were to grant a license renewal now, Entergy would have little or no incentive to take the very important steps needed to improve safety at Indian Point."

The Nuclear Power Licensing Reform Act would:

* Make clear that any licensing, including initial licensing, must include a determination that the facility does not pose an unreasonable threat to persons or the environment because of safety or security vulnerabilities, including vulnerability to terrorist attacks;

* Require that there exist adequate evacuation plans for emergency events and that those plans have been approved by the relevant Federal agencies and States within 50 miles of the facility;

* Require that any renewed license must meet the same criteria and requirements that would be applicable for an original application for initial construction; and

* Require the NRC to determine that any changes in the size or distribution of the surrounding population have not resulted in the facility being located at a site at which a new facility would not be allowed to be built.

# # #

Meaghan Smith
Press Secretary
Congressman John Hall (NY-19)
1217 Longworth HOB
202.225.5441 (o)
202.253.7700 (c)

Sign up for Congressman Hall's E-newsletter at

http://johnhall.house.gov/emailjohn.asp It's a pathetic newsletter.

A New Idea To Consider As I Head Out To Get My Cast Off

Was sitting here having my second cup of coffee, watching the pre-Kentucky Derby hysteria on the news when it came to me...lets put Entergy and the NRC's faith in plant security to the test with a winner take all Independent Force on Force test, with the site only knowing the day of the test. We, the host team get to design the event, and put together our own independently chosen attack force. Since we are not allowed to see security related items, we'll design our team, choose their weapons and attack points with only what we ourselves can find out on our own via the Internet. I'm thinking we should use a team of 18 members (we have precedent in 9/11 of that sized terrorist group working together inside America's borders) that we divide into say three strike force teams.

The NRC will provide us with nothing more than the objectives list. Entergy can prepare its site and security staff anyway it wants, but must have for the exercise it's normal security deployment numbers...no beefing up plant security for the test.

If our community based and designed Force on Force attack team beats Indian Point's Security team, we win...I'd suggest my Uncle who did several tours over in Nam as a Green Beret, or someone like him act as planner of our attack design for this exercise. Entergy wins, the plant stays open, we win the plant closes. One last note...we will not be held to the worthless standards in the NRC's DBT in planning our portion of the exercise.

As the old saying goes, let the NRC and Entergy put their money where their mouth is, and prove to us how good their security team is. Put up, or shut up. Since Governor Pitzer, Hillary Clinton, John Hall, Muarice Hinchey, Nita Lowey and Spano all insist the plant be safe, would challenge these politicians to file this request jointly as a Petition for Rule Makking (2.208) but since it is doubtful they have those kind of balls, will do it myself when I return home this afternoon.

Could Someone Give John Hall A Clue-We Already Get Hearings

Give us a break already...Reps. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison; Eliot Engel, D-Bronx; John Hall, D-Dover Plains; Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley; and Christopher Shays, R-Bridgeport, Conn. all trotted out to the press today to let us know they have sent a blistering letter off to the NRC demanding "A SERIES OF ROBUST PUBLIC HEARINGS" on Indian Point's brittling failing reactors. WOW, nothing like demanding what the NRCs 10 CFR Rules and Regulations already guarantee us...WAY TO STICK YOUR NECKS OUT GUYS!

Do hope this is not what Congressman John Hall meant when he stated last Saturday that he has some ideas and plans in the works to halt relicensing. In the meantime, the Indian Point license renewal package is now on the NRC web page...all 1600 plus pages of it. Below is the information you need to access it.

Indian Point Energy Center - License Renewal Application
On this page:

Application Information
License Renewal Review Schedule
Public Involvement
Project Managers for Indian Point Energy Center

Application Information:

The following links on this page are to documents in our Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS documents are provided in either Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) or Tagged Image File Format (TIFF). To obtain free viewers for displaying these formats, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools. If you have problems with viewing or printing documents from ADAMS, please contact the Public Document Room staff.

License Renewal Application
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Environmental Report

License Renewal Review Schedule*

*These schedules reflect work plans that are subject to change. Early completion of a milestone may affect the target date of future milestones. Subsequent meetings and comment periods may change based on the revised schedule. This work plan will be updated on a periodic basis. Please see the NRC Public Meetings Page or contact the listed PM for the latest information on meetings and status.

Public Involvement

The public is encouraged to participate in the reactor license renewal process through public meetings, and public comment periods on rules, renewal guidance, and other documents. The Reactor License Renewal Public Involvement page provides general information to help the public participate.

How Vulnerable Is Indian Point? Are We One Rocket Away From Chernobyl On Hudson?

Could Your Child Find The Water Intakes On This Diagram? If They Can, So Can A Terrorist!

Every time there is an incident at Entergy's failing, leaking, brittling reactors, such as Vermont Yankee or Indian Point 2 and 3 we know the party line of the NRC and its licensee, can almost recite it blind folded. There was no off site release of radioactive materials, and the general public was never at any immediate risk. First evil cruelty on the part of the NRC and its licensee is that little line of IMMEDIATE RISK. Unless metal scrapnel from the explosion at Indian Point had flown off site and struck someone dead, there is no immediate risk or danger...now, poisonous chemical fumes floating off site in a gentle breeze and being breathed in might cause someone some latent negative health effects or risks, but they don't want to discuss that. The claim of no immediate danger or risk somehow absolves them.

They want the host community to falsely believe there is no risk to living in the ten mile radius of death around a nuclear reactor, want you to buy into their lie of Nuclear Energy as a safe, vital and secure Green Energy that is going to save you and the world from Global Warming. They will even try to convince, that in the case of a major incident, you have NOTHING AT ALL TO WORRY ABOUT if you just shut your doors and windows, and SHELTER IN PLACE for a few hours or days. Kids in school, not a problem, they have it all planned out, the kids can duct tape plastic on the windows, eat no bake cookies and hide under their desks to ride out the radioactive fallout! Before you buy into that lie, might want to check out Condi Rice's State Department site...they speak of sheltering that could last a couple of weeks.

During the 2003 BLACKOUT, 21 nuclear reactors, all dependent on offsite power for safety operations, were immediately shut down in the US and Canada. Even more troubling, five nuclear power stations in New York and Wisconsin admitted that over half of their emergency sirens WERE NOT WORKING due to the outage! Any one want to place a bet that Indian Point was on that list? In severe weather, when off site electric goes down, NRC has a fist full of examples of onsite back up generators failing, including a case in a South Carolina nuclear power plant, where all four diesel generators were found inoperable due to a common mode failure.

Which begs the question, how safe are we if there is a terrorist attack at Indian Point, and how easily could they cause a core melt down? Three recent events at Indian Point show us that the reactors are in DEEP TROUBLE if the water intakes are some how impinged. First, Entergy makes it very easy to figure out the location of these intakes, as site maps smiliar to the one above are liberally posted all over the internet...show the map to an eight read old, and they can identify the location of said water intakes, so how hard would it be for a terrorist to put two and two together and come up with four?

Can here the pro nuke naysayers now accusing me of being and over imaginative freak who has smoked too much bud again...but ask yourselves this question. If a Penthouse Pet of The Month can drive a Prius almost up to the rivers edge and stare out across the Hudson River at Indian Point's reactor domes, what is to keep a band of determined terrorists from driving up to the same spot and drawing a bead on the plants 2 and 3 intake valves? With no water, the control room staff cannot save any of us.

You can ignore the truth right in front of your eyes, pretend that you and your children aare safe, or you can join the crusade to shut down and decommission these reactors before it is to late.

Betcee Checking Out The Reactor Domes!

National Nuclear Bills Legislation to Date

Research provided
by David Bedell
dbedellgreen@hotmail.com

I did some searching on http://thomas.loc.gov, and came up with the following history of bills introduced.

I've grouped them by topic:

INDIAN POINT

OYSTER CREEK

POTASSIUM IODIDE
OTHER REGULATION

I didn't find any other bills related to specific nuclear plants, although the search went back to 1990. Maybe I missed some.

Notice some are House, some are Senate bills. Sponsor and cosponsors are listed. This is just a starting point for identifying potential cosponsors for a nationwide nuclear safety bill. I suppose the next step would be to identify all the House districts where reactors are located.

List of reactors at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

-David

INDIAN POINT

110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 994 - To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an Independent Safety Assessment of the Indian Point Energy Center.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 12, 2007 Mr. HALL of New York (for himself, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr. SHAYS)

109th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2488 - To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an independent safety assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 3, 2006 Mrs. CLINTON

OYSTER CREEK

109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 966 - To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider certain criteria in relicensing nuclear facilities, and to provide for an independent assessment of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station by the National Academy of Sciences prior to any relicensing of that facility.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 17, 2005 Mr. SAXTON

109th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1381 - To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider certain criteria in relicensing nuclear facilities, and to provide for an independent assessment of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station by the National Academy of Sciences before any relicensing of that facility. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES July 12, 2005 Mr. CORZINE

POTASSIUM IODIDE

109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1291 - To require the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Defense, and Homeland Security to carry out activities toward bringing to market effective medical countermeasures to radiation from a nuclear or radiological attack.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 15, 2005 Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mrs. DAVIS of California, and Mr. SESSIONS)

108th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 5000 - To require the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Defense, and Homeland Security to carry out activities toward bringing to market effective medical countermeasures to radiation from a nuclear or radiological attack.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJuly 22, 2004Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. ISSA)

107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 783 - To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop a plan for stockpiling potassium iodide tablets in areas within a 50-mile radius of a nuclear power plant. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 28, 2001 Mr. ENGLISH

107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 3279 - To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that sufficient stockpiles of potassium iodide tablets have been established near nuclear power plants and that appropriate plans for their utilization exist. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 13, 2001 Mr. MARKEY

107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 3510 - To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to provide for the stockpiling of potassium iodide tablets in the United States in areas within a 50-mile radius of the homeport of a naval vessel operated by nuclear power. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES December 18, 2001 Mr. FILNER

OTHER REGULATION

109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 755 - To provide for the external regulation of nuclear safety and occupational safety and health responsibilities at any nonmilitary energy laboratory owned or operated by the Department of Energy. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 10, 2005 Mr. COSTELLO (for himself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. EHLERS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. WU, and Mr. MCNULTY)

106th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 3907 - To provide for the external regulation of nuclear safety and occupational safety and health at Department of Energy facilities.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMarch 14, 2000Mr. BLILEY (for himself, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. UPTON, Mr. BURR of North Carolina; Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Mr. CALVERT)

103d CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2254 - To amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to establish an Independent Nuclear Safety Board, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESJUNE 30 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994 Mr. BIDEN

108th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1376 - To include the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as employers for the purposes of whistleblower protection.IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESJuly 8, 2003 Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. ENSIGN)

107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 267 - Expressing the sense of the Congress concerning the security of nuclear facilities in the United States. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESNovember 13, 2001 Mr. GEKAS (for himself, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. PITTS, and Mr. PLATTS)

105th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 960 - To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to authorize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to direct that a portion of any civil penalty assessed be used to assist local communities. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES June 25, 1997 Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN)

102d CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 645 - To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to authorize the States to regulate the disposal of low-level radioactive waste for which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not require disposal in a licensed facility. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 24, 1991 Mr. MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. SLATTERY, Mr. PAYNE of Virginia, Mr. MCCLOSKEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. OWENS of Utah, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. NEAL of North Carolina, Mr. MOODY, Mr. SABO, Mr. NOWAK, Mr. BRYANT, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. YATES, Mr. STOKES, Mr. PENNY, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. STARK, Mr. ATKINS, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. JONTZ, Mr. CONTE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. KOSTMAYER, Mr. POSHARD, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. ROE, Mr. MAVROULES, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. WEISS, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. SCHEUER, Mr. BONIOR, Mr. WALSH, Mrs. UNSOELD, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. WHEAT, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. MRAZEK, Mr. VENTO, Mr. DWYER of New Jersey, Mr. BUSTAMANTE, Mr. FASCELL, Mr. DELLUMS, and Mr. JONES of Georgia

103d CONGRESS 2d Session S. 1165 [Report No. 103-331] - To provide for judicial review of Nuclear Regulatory Commission decisions on petitions for enforcement actions, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES June 25 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993 Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS)

109th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 5761 - To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to improve the material control and accounting and data management systems used by civilian nuclear power reactors to better account for spent nuclear fuel and reduce the risks associated with the handling of those materials. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 11, 2006 Mr. SANDERS

109th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 3634 - To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to improve the material control and accounting and data management systems used by civilian nuclear power reactors to better account for spent nuclear fuel and reduce the risks associated with the handling of those materials. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES July 11, 2006 Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. LEAHY)

101st CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 3527 - To establish within the Department of Energy an Office for Environment, Safety , and Health. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 25, 1989 Mr. SCHEUER (for himself, Mr. TANNER, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, and Mr. PALLONE)

Poetry Contest, and Other Important News...We Need More Than A Dog and Pony Show John Hall!

Like a caterpillar tucked safely within a cocoon, society seems content to ignore the warnings of the Gods, their own selfish personal comforts far more important than a call to sacrifice for a greater societal good...let the NRC relicense the reactors, it's not our community that would pay the price if there were an accident, and what are the odds of that? WE need the electricity, besides, nuclear is safe except for that whole waste stream problem, and they'll eventually solve that problem?

Come In from the storm
the acid rain is falling
Glaziers are melting
Our shelter still has room

Indian Point is gone
2 blew up yesterday
3 the day before

They said it could not happen
They were wrong, we were right
Little comfort in that
No relief from our plight

So please come in from the storm
We could use some company

Sheltering in place
After two months
Is a lonely game at best
Better to be dead like the rest
Come in out of the storm

The isotopes are falling
It's dangerous out there
Come in from the storm
We can use some company

Children, we have a quest
Quick, get a chair,
Something to drink
We'll eat him soon
After a short rest

Just thought I would toss something up to the blog that would remind all of our readers that we are accepting submissions in our Poetry Contest, so LET'S GET CREATIVE! $1,000 is not something to sneeze at, and we want to see some really good ANTI NUCLEAR messages coming in.

On other news...I am finally FEELING BETTER after being down with a serious flu bug of some sort. Even missed Green Drinks last night, so hoping to get a report up from Remy who was able to attend. John Hall introduced his bill, and it is JUST WHAT WE FEARED...nothing more than a reworked version of Congressman Maurice Hinchey's failed bill of a year ago.

Andrew Spano and the rest of our Westchester County government seem content right now to follow a failed strategy of supporting Legislation that went NO WHERE in 2006. Congressman John Hall's office went so far as to tell Green Nuclear Butterfly that things WOULD BE DIFFERENT now that Democrats were in charge. Uhhh....if things are different, how come the Democratic Congress is STILL FUNDING GNEP? Stop lying to us. As to John Hall's contention that things are different...WANT TO MAKE A WAGER Mr. Music Man? Following suit, Hilliary again place her DEAD MARKER on the table by reintroducing her own failed legislation from 2006...how SERIOUS can she be when she got NOT ONE SPONSOR last year?

Riverkeeper...if you care counting on them to SAVE US, forget about it...they did not even have Indian Point on their TOP SIX priority list for 2007! Kennedy needs to take his head out of the sand...his and Riverkeeper's ostrich impression has grown old and stale.

The new office for Green Nuclear Butterfly was officially opened at 6:09 this evening with a nice bottle of Merlot...it's cozy, and if any of you would like to stop in for coffee and a chat, drop us an email: roycepenstinger@aol.com Lastly...can someone send us a copy of the March Penthouse? LOL

Attorney General Cuomo Slams NRC

Department of Law

120 Broadway

New York, NY 10271

The State Capitol

Albany, NY 12224

For More Information:

212-416-8060

For Immediate Release

January 30, 2007

ATTORNEY GENERAL ANDREW CUOMO SLAMS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION’S RULING ON ATOMIC PLANT SECURITY

Highlights potential threat to millions of New Yorkers by a terrorist attack on Indian Point and condemns Indian Point’s flawed evacuation plan

BUFFALO, New York (January 30, 2007) — Yesterday the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) refused to endorse a petition to require U.S. nuclear plants to erect a barrier to protect against a direct attack from an aircraft, and refused to publicly order other security measures as well. The New York Attorney General’s Office had backed the petition and submitted formal comments, along with 7 other state attorneys general.

In 2004 the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles nonprofit group, petitioned the NRC to significantly upgrade security at U.S. nuclear power plants. They urged that the NRC require nuclear plant owners to prepare to repel threats by air, water, or land by a group comparable in size to the 19 al Qaeda operatives who carried out the 9/11 attacks, employing more than one unit and using any suitable weapon, vehicle, and means of sabotage. In particular, the petition urged the NRC to require a defense against an attack with a fully-loaded jumbo jet.

Attorney General Cuomo said, “Yesterday the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ignored the lessons of September 11 and abandoned its responsibility to protect millions of New Yorkers. They failed to heed the warnings of the 9/11 commission, which reported that al-Qaeda terrorists had specifically contemplated attacking nuclear power plants with aircraft. There are simple affordable measures nuclear plant operators can undertake to enhance security. It is outrageous that the Bush Administration caved in to the nuclear power interests over the security of Americans living near these plants.”

Cuomo continued, “This also highlights my ongoing concerns about security and safety at Indian Point. Indian Point is located in a region of 21 million people. No nuclear plant in the nation is located in as dense an area. Yet, even after 9/11 and Katrina, Indian Point’s operator, Entergy, still hasn’t submitted an adequate evacuation plan for New Yorkers who could be harmed by a radiation leak.”

2006 marked the fourth straight year that Westchester, Rockland, and Orange Counties refused to certify Entergy’s county-based evacuation plans as acceptable. In 2003 James Lee Whitt, FEMA director under President Clinton, concluded that Entergy’s plan was “inadequate to protect the people from an unacceptable dose of radiation.”

Indian Point’s original 40 year licenses will expire in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Entergy has announced that it will apply to the NRC to renew these licenses in March 2007.

Cuomo said, “All of these safety measures must be addressed by Entergy. In June 2006, the National Academy of Sciences issued a roadmap to our future without Indian Point. It confirmed that the obstacles to replacing the power generated by Indian point are merely political and not technological. We need to implement demand-reduction strategies, develop alternative energy, and build new power plants that are as safe and clean as possible to move toward a future without Indian Point.

National Academies Press :: read the text free online...
Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs

Where are the Anti Nuclear Voices? Greenpeace Traitor Moore Speaks in Vermont!

I learned yesterday morning that J. Patrick Moore, an individual reported to have been a founder of GREENPEACE was in my town 1-30-07 being feted at a party at the Brattleboro Museum.

I have since learned that today, 1-31-07, he is to have an audience at the Brattleboro Reformer newspaper. I do not know if any opposing voices were present outside the Brattleboro Museum. All the known activists were informed. Of the dozen people who were called I saw not a trace of one when I drove by the museum at 6 pm. However I did see a hired police cruiser.

In the morning of 1-30-07 Moore spoke to the Vermont legislature on behalf of his new found beliefs that nuclear is the answer to global warming and climate change. According to the Barre Montpelier Times Argus he does not change his tune up here in VT from his spiel in less green states. Wait – how can VT call itself green when 1/3 the electricity is from split atoms leaving radioactive waste for thousands of generations?

Dr. Helen Caldicott knows nuclear is not the answer to climate change, as does former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford. Nuclear is not sustainable. No one knows how to dispose of the waste. If nuclear were to be a climate change solution a new reactor would need to be built so often and so frequently, it basically leads one to the same argument the nuclear industry uses to discourage renewables.

Resting on his fame as one of the founders of Greenpeace, Dr. Moore now lobbies on behalf of the nuclear industry, under the guise of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.

1-31-07– the NRC is in Brattleboro on the issue of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement that paves the way for the extension of the operating license for the reactor past its 40 year lifespan. Meanwhile Drs Deutch and Moniz, professors at MIT behind the renowned 2003 Future of Nuclear Power study, state that reactors have a life span of approximately 50 years. Entergy is pushing Vermont Yankee towards a 60 year mark if they win the extension. Worse yet is the idea that once they are into the license extension the NRC fully expects the reactors to seek yet another 20 year extension.

The recent attempt at the nuclear relapse, renaissance, re-traumatizing depends on the now ignorant and scared public who haven’t the memory for Chernobyl or for Three Mile Island. Instead we have a public that likes its energy wasting abilities. We have generous Entergy corporations and clones creating new infrastructures for further energy wasting in the form of Christmas lights which surely will be used to needlessly brighten the town for shoppers throughout the year.

And to quote Green Nuclear Butterfly where are the people willing to show up to counter Entergy and the industry?

On 1-31- 07 the NRC will hold two environmental impact hearings in the Latchis Theatre in Brattleboro. The room holds hundreds of people. I will be surprised if 60 residents show up opposing Entergy in both meetings combined. Is this the dragon eating its own tail ? Possibly.

Until people get concerned enough to show up and stop the nuclear relapse, the relapse will not be halted. Until there is a bad enough accident people will believe the tripe spoken by the likes of J Patrick Moore, that nuclear and its highly toxic residues can save us. It is a lie.

Even the real experts Deutch and Moniz of MIT, (also used to promote the nuclear agenda) have stated that nuclear has too many unresolved issues to be the solution to climate change.

Green Nuclear Butterfly Morning News Brief

Greetings Readers:

Some BIG NEWS events today here at Green Nuclear Butterfly, so want to give our readers a HEAD'S UP, so that you don't miss anything.

1. Green Nuclear Butterfly was created and launched on December 26th, 2006. We are very pleased to announce, that our next post will see us pass the important milestone of 100 articles.

2. Deadline for signing our open letter to Greenpeace is upon us...so, we'd like EVERYONE today to really push to bring us a few more signatures to that effort. Either tomorrow or Friday we'll print a hard copy of said letter and mail it off to Washington, DC.

3. Green Nuclear Butterfly later today will be posting the official rules for the Green Nuclear Butterfly's Photons and Poetry, Poets Against Relicensing Poetry Contest. Poets, get out your pens and start honing your ANTI NUKE poetry skills, as one lucky winner will be taking home a grand prize of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS! We will have a second online entrants only award of $200.00. Read all about this exciting event later today.

All entries will become the property of Green Nuclear Butterfly, and Rock The Reactors, the officials sponsors of this event...if you, or your organization would like to be a part of this event, would like to donate towards our prize pool, or would be interested in hosting the public reading of the finalists submissions, please contact our publisher at roycepenstinger@aol.com. We are hoping for at least 100 entries in each of the two divisions of this contest.

Division 1-Any ANTI Nuke poem, or a green themed piece that does not embrace nuclear as alternative fuel choice. 20 finalists will be chosen from this group, and if chosen, you must be able to show up for the public reading where the winner will be chosen. This will be a winner take all event, with the Grand Prize Recipient recieving $1,000.

Division 2-Green Nuclear Butterfly realizes many of our readers are from all over the world with readers now in 11 foreign nations. Because of this, we are putting up $200 for a special online only division for those who cannot make our public reading. We are hoping we will have some additional patrons step forward so we can increase the amount of this award.

4. Green Nuclear Butterfly will also be finalizing comments in opposition of the Pilgrim plants continued operation as well today. We encourage all of our readers to make it a point to submit written comments opposing any and all efforts to relicense any and all of the aging fleet of reactors here in America. To this end, we will today be opening up a Yahoo Group for grassroots organizations to keep each other informed, a place where you can post your requests for help, or share important NRC documents.

Last, but certainly NOT LEAST...we really could use some financial sponsors and donors, as we have many more ideas just waiting to be launched. So, if Donald Trump is reading this, or Cher is looking for a new favorite Grassroots group to support, feel free to use our DONATION button to make a pay pal contribution to our efforts.

HOLD THE PHONE...NRC LIES To Keep Public From Panicking

REACTORS ARE DEATH CAMPS, and NRC KNOWS IT

OK, some might find this over the TOP, but holy F**KING S**T! If ever there was a day that rallied the citizens to hold the NRC accountable, to start closing down aging reactors, THIS IS THE DAY!

First, we have the NRC ruling that it is NOT the responsibility of the reactor owner (ENTERGY) to protect their own infrastructure (nuclear reactors) from a significant terrorist attack, or from attack by a large airplane, and/or jet fighter. Instead, the NRC cautions the plants to do their best AFTER THE ATTACK to mitigate the release. That's OVER THE DAMN TOP in any ones book, but this is a day for OVER THE TOP.

Seems there was a LEAK at Millstone over the weekend. there was radioactive contamination RAINING DOWN ON THE GENERAL PUBLIC! Were there evacuations, were people warned of the dangers? NO! It seems that the NRC F**KING LIED to the population as they were afraid said public WOULD PANIC! Think about this FOLKS...if the GOD DAMN evacuation plans are so GREAT, will were they not used? Why was the NRC afraid the public would PANIC! IF THEY HAVE LIED ABOUT THIS, WHAT ELSE ARE THEY LYING ABOUT? How much VALUABLE evacuation time was LOST while the NRC, while their licensee LIED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC?

WAKE UP AMERICA...I don't give a flying F**K if the NRC has relicensed certain reactors, done so against the will of the people...if that has happened, then the local governments, their police, their public works need to give the operators DAYS to shut down the reactors, and then LOCK THEM OUT OF THEIR FACILITIES. If the NRC will not shut down the facilities, then local government MUST. Let's not kid ourselves...how long do you think Indian Point will remain open if we start putting 200,000 people on their land EVERY DAMN WEEKEND OF THE YEAR? Sure, the State Police could stop 20, 30 even 100 protesters...they CANNOT STOP A MASS OF HUMANITY 200,000 members strong!

Riverkeeper Website Indian Point Section Updated Today

Today we received an email from Lisa Rainwater announcing a slight redesign of the Riverkeeper website to make the Indian Point infomation it contains more easily navigable. I've been there a few times for information, although much of it is rather dated, not really up to the minute.

There a really good Word file there with listings of elected officials and their stance on Indian Point, many of them having expressed their opposition to the relicensing, which would still, even if we succeed in the preventing it, leave this plant up and running till 2012... which is scary enough, considering all the problems we know it's having.

I discovered here that Elizabeth Santander, the owner of Icon Interiors, 160 King Street in Chappaqua, advocated shutting down of Indian Point back in 2002. So did Edward Rosenfeld, of IFR Furniture Rentals in Hawthorne. Hmm... Maybe they should contact Josh Dorfman at Vivavi to share with him why green furniture designers should also support Rock The Reactors.

Or this press release about a private meeting between Congressman Eliot Engel and NRC Chairman Nils Diaz back on March 22, 2006. “I told the Chairman that the failure of the NRC to be proactive and transparent when addressing community concerns has led to the growing fear that any emergency situation at Indian Point can lead to disaster,” said Engel.

Also this Bill introduced on March 7, 2006, by Congressman Maurice Hinchey, a year to the day of the deadline for Entergy to file their relicensing request. "With radioactive material leaking out of Indian Point towards the Hudson River and the plant continuing to experience a wide array of other safety issues, it is quite clear that an Independent Safety Assessment is very much needed," Hinchey said.

Not every blog and website can do everything... the more the merrier... so I suggest we all help Riverkeeper update their data. Please go through everything, and if you see something that needs updating, email Lisa at Riverkeeper, let's make these files and these pages current again.

Counties Opposed to Relicensing

Westchester County
Rockland County
Ulster County
Suffolk County
Hudson County, NJ

Municipalities Opposed to Relicensing

Village of Airmont, NY
Village of Croton-on-Hudson, NY
Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, NY
Village of Hillburn, NY
Village of Irvington, NY
Village of Mamaroneck, NY
Village of Nyack, NY
Village of Piermont, NY
Village of Pomona
Village of Portchester, NY
Village of Rye Brook, NY
Village of Sloatsburg, NY
Village of Spring Valley, NY
Village of Upper Nyack, NY
Town of Bedford, NY
Town of Clarkstown, NY
Town of Greenburgh, NY
Town of Lewisboro, NY
Town of New Castle, NY
Town of North Castle, NY
Town of Pound Ridge, NY
Town of Putnam Valley, NY
Town of Ramapo, NY
Town of Somers, NY
Town of Yorktown, NY
Town of Harrison, NJ
Borough of Alpine, NJ
Borough of Tenafly, NJ
Newark, NJ

Labor Groups that have passed shutdown resolutions
1199 SEIU (Service Employees International Union), New York
District Council 37 (56 affiliated unions), New York
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, New York (NYC Chapter)
NYSUT-AFT Local 3882

More About Mobilizing Support from Municipalities, NYC Community Boards, School Boards, and Civic Groups.