The Reactor Core Breach at Indian Point Three

In a developing news story, our research behind the scenes leads us to pose to Entergy, Indian Point and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency several key questions regarding the long term viability of Indian Point's two functioning reactors, specifically reactor number three.

1. Is it true that in 1984 the NRC and Con Edison hid a breach in the core of reactor three by having their space suited decontamination and repair crews working in the stealth of darkness, bringing crews in and out only under cover of the midnight sky? I'd suggest folks like Neil Sheehan be very careful HOW THEY ANSWER THIS QUESTION...never know what proof might pop up and bite them in the ass.

2. Could Entergy explain why they CHEATED on the reactor core stress test...the MUST PASS test if a nuclear reactor is to win license renewal? Further, can the NRC explain why they are not doing anything about this? Look for an explosive document release to back up this claim in the coming months here on Green Nuclear Butterfly.

3. Can the NRC, Con Edison and Entergy explain why a LARGE GASH in spent fuel pool number two (put there by an errant welder) was NEVER reported, even though it took over a year to repair the leak which was significantly below the water line. (This information comes from a former employee of Underwater Welding out of Connecticut)

4. Can the NRC explain why they have admitted there is tritium leaking on the Indian Point facility that does not match the fingerprint to be coming from the spent fuel pools...isn't it true that the NRC knows emphatically that tritium is LEAKING from the hot leg of both reactor 2 and 3?

More presents from Santa Claus coming...the pro industry biased pricks on the board may think they got rid of one Sherwood Martinelli, but don't be so sure.

Location of Projected New Nuclear Power Reactors

Enlarge the map:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html

In Worst Nuclear Accident Since Chernobyl At Least 20 Russian Sailors DIE HORRIBLE NUCLEAR DEATH

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, John McCain routinely LIED about the safety of the Nuclear Navy, deliberately mislead Americans regarding the safety of nuclear energy...well, as we all sit safely in our homes tonight, Russia is hiding the location and name of a naval vessel where 20 sailors have died a horrible nuclear death, with at least 20 others severely injured, perhaps suffering from severe nuclear burns or sure to be FATAL over exposure to radioactive particulates...which raises the question, is the world in the middle of a Naval China Syndrome as a Russian sea going vessel spews its ruptured onboard reactor's nuclear particulates into the world's oceans? Is this the first example of what is to come as America's own aged and brittle reactors give up the ghost and explode when exposed to Thermal Shock? WE NEED DETAILS RUSSIA, NOT COVER UPS!

At least 20 die in accident on Russian nuclear sub

MOSCOW, Nov. 8, 2008 (Reuters) — At least 20 people died and 21 were injured in an accident on board a Russian nuclear-powered submarine, Russian news agencies said on Saturday. ... > full story
http://www.nukestrat.com/russia/subpatrols.htm

Soviet/Russian Nuclear Submarine Patrols 1981-2006

The annual number of patrols performed by Russian nuclear-powered submarines has plummeted from 235 in 1984 to less than 10 today. In 2002, the strategic submarine force did not manage to send a single boat on deterrent patrol. (click on graph to download PDF version)

Patrol Areas

During the Cold War, the patrol areas for Soviet ballistic missile submarines gradually changed as new capabilities were introduced. Most important was the range of the missile, which permitted the submarines to pull back into patrol areas ("bastions") closer to the Soviet Union.

Delta IV Class Ballistic Missile Submarine

Russian nuclear submarines are spending most of their life at pier side.

Status of FUSE USA contentions - Richard Barkley NRC

From: Richard Barkley NRC
To: Remy Chevalier
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Subject: RE: what is status of fuse usa contentions

(Personal correspondence edited for clarity. RemyC)

Remy,

Here is what I found out

1) The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board struck (or rejected) FUSE's petition to intervene by Order of February 1, 2008. Appeals from that decision were due on February 11, 2008; however, no appeal was filed.

2) FUSE designated Sherwood to serve as its representative. After Sherwood was barred from the proceeding in December 2007, FUSE named John LeKay as its representative. Communications by the NRC concerning the adjudicatory proceeding are sent to the representative designated by the organization. Thus that is why you haven't received anything in the mail. I assume you know John LeKay and can get information from him.

License renewal applications are reviewed by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in Rockville, MD. The Licensing Board and NRC Staff involved in the review and adjudication are also located in Rockville, MD. I am not directly involved in license renewal matters, but rather have acted to answer public questions on this subject and facilitate public meetings.

3) The NRC website has a link to the Electronic Hearing Docket for each adjudicatory proceeding, where members of the public can find Licensing Board and Commission Orders, and documents filed by the participants in the proceeding. Documents are also readily available in the NRC's ADAMS system.
Try this link: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/other-hearings.html
All of this information is available to the public.

At this point, the ASLB admitted fifteen (15) contentions into consideration, out of roughly 150 contentions submitted. New York State had the most admitted; some of their issues closely mimicked the issues that FUSE submitted. That is by far the most admitted at any nuclear station that requested license renewal. Hearings on those contentions will incur in the coming months.

Make sure you check out the Electronic Hearing Docket. It should have links to all of the hearing resources you are interested in. It's at http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp.

Once in the EHD, click on folder Indian_PT_2&3_50-247&50-286-LR
and you'll find board orders, commission and board orders, Pleadings, and Transcripts. You should be able to find any communications in the proceeding there, organized by date.

I also want to give you a link with the ALSB hearing process so you can keep up with the status of current issues.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/indian-point.html

Richard S. Barkley, PE
Technical Communications Assistant, Region I
(610) 337-5065

Curious Here Why IPSEC Is Not Filing 2.206 Petitions?

Hello all...been sitting here on the sidelines all these months dealing with my wife's Indian Point caused breast cancer, and watching Entergy (so far) successfully swatting at the Anti Nuclear flies buzzing around the hearings on their License Renewal Application. (Think Riverkeeper, Clearwater, even the state Attorney General) Meanwhile, the turn coat Congressman John Hall not surprisingly has been all but SILENT in the fight, far more concerned with getting elected two more times too secure his pension than taking on the issues and keeping his campaign promise to do everything in his power to shut down Indian Point(but then Hilliary is no better)...curious here how many people see taking money from a Pro Nuclear Industry union as doing everything one can to shut down Indian Point? Maybe I'll put my house on the market and Entergy can buy it so that I can move out of the area...NOW THERE WOULD BE A STORY! Hey Steets, give me a call!

Anyway, back to 2.206 petitions...I long ago told many of the powers that be in the Anti Nuclear Movement that the most successful way of shutting down Indian Point(or any other facility) was to swamp NRC's office staff with an avalanche of paperwork...that strategy would and could still work. Or has everyone missed the articles on the HUGE MAN POWER SHORTAGE in the industry, including at the NRC? As example, the latest news on Earthquake faults coupled with the DEC's findings on fish kills opens up a whole new avenue for additional filings against Entergy and their crumbling Indian Point reactors over in Buchanan, NY. Has anyone contacted Underwater Welding in Connecticut to find out about the huge gash made in the spent fuel pool? (For that matter, has the NRC bothered to contact Sam Vale to find out what he knows about it?)

As for Indian Point's security against a terrorist attack...here's an idea for Entergy to contemplate. How about letting the citizens put together a DBT exercise in real time with a hand picked group of citizens armed with paintball guns? The citizens successfully infiltrate the plant, and land accurate shots on sensitive equipment, and Entergy forfeits their license? Say and attack team equivalent to that which attacked us on 9/11. Meanwhile, can anyone at the NRC explain why a high powered 50 cal rifle was taken off the list of weapons that Entergy and all other nuclear reactors have to defend against was taken off the list? After all, just about anyone so inclined could get their hands on one...rumor has it that said rifle is a favorite of LA Gangs. Could it have anything to do with the fact that a 50 cal. rifle with the right ammo makes Indian Points bullet resistent glass in their guard towers obsolete? Enquiring minds want to know. I am sure the CLOSED DOOR meetings with the NEI had nothing to do with it.

By the way...I said it before, and based on the adjudiction board's decisions so far in the Indian Point License Renewal, the three judge panel is a bunch of Pro Industry Pricks and stupid ones at that. Maybe they should look into security guards at the plant turning their backs while employees sneak their girlfriends into the facility for a little bump and grind away from the prying eyes of their spouses...whoops, shouldn't repeat what we hear in the local bars now should we? Even if what we heard came out of the lips of Indian Point staff. Face it folks...the board wants to get Indian Point relicensed before a serious accident happens at the plant...I base that on a letter I foundd on the White House web site from NEI, but then some would go so far as to call me a conspiracy nut even if they themselves don't trust George Bush and Dick Cheney.

In unrelated news...perhaps if Sarah Palin had taught her daughter about safe sex instead of preaching to her about abstinance, we would not have John McCain's vice presidential pick's daughter getting ready to give birth to a bastard child. Talk about a ticket...let's see, she is accused of trying to get her sister's former husband fired, her own husband is convicted of a DUI, and John McCain is an adulter by self admission...talk about FAMILY VALUES! Should be a fun fall for the Democrats, even if John Hall did LIE TO US.

Joe Biden

The entire election is now going to hinge on whether you are pro or anti-nuke with Indian Point as the sacrificial lamb.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Has Panties in Knot

I spent the better part of yesterday at the Office of Westchester County Commissioner Andy Spano attending a press conference. By the time I broke bread with friends, and returned to my home less three miles from the aging Indian Point reactors owned by Entergy, it was late afternoon, and I had things to do. So, it was not until after ten last night that I got around to opening my emails. After deleting all the SPAM, the first letter of importance was from the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board informing me that THEY HAD CENSURED ME for what they feel were inappropriate remarks. I'd stated in a email letter to one Mr. Turk that the board's order dismissing all of FUSE USA's contentions in the name of HOUSE CLEANING amounted to them all acting like "pro nuclear industry pricks". (paraphrasing here)

1. The letter was NOT ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD, I merely CCed them a copy of communications between myself and Mr. Turk, erring on the side of caution, not wanting to be accused of Exparte Communications with the board's law clerk.

2. The board finds my use of the word pricks when referring to them abhorrant and disgusting, and is demanding that I offer up an apology to said board for offending their sensibilities, OR THEY WILL DISMISS ALL my filings, and FORBID me from participating moving forward in the License Renewal process...NO DURESS THERE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

Before Administrative Judges:

Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman

Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop

Dr. Richard E. Wardwell

In the Matter of

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating

Units 2 and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR

ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01

December 3, 2007

Sherwood Martinelli

Response to Censure

Apology to Board, and Other Matters

Dear Board and Participants:

I am in receipt of today’s censure order, where the board has taken exception to my speaking my honest heart felt opinion and beliefs in stating, “. . . the board decided to be a bunch of pro industry pricks . . .” as relates to a previous decision by the board, wherein certain FUSE USA filings were tossed not because of a lack of merit, but on technicalities as relates to the rules. It struck me as more than odd, that the board basically gave Entergy everything they were asking for in their Motion to Strike.

In hindsight, I could have, and perhaps should have found a more diplomatic means by which to express and state my discontent and anger with, what I feel was and is a bias, pro-nuclear industry decision by said board. For that reason, for my indiscretion in how I expressed my own perceived truths, I do apologize for using language that the Board and anyone else took exception to in my written response to this board, and shall endeavor in the future to express my views, opinions and facts in a fashion that avoids the proverbial George Carlin list of words that one is not supposed to use on network television. My intent then and now was to express my HONEST OPINIONS before this board, not to offend other’s sensibilities in that process.

So as to clarify my position, I restate, I do apologize to the board for using what they deem to have been “inappropriate and disrespectful language.” Perhaps I have spent too much time reading some of the rather colorful exchanges in the emails of certain NRC staff, or perhaps I have a different view point on what is or is not appropriate language to use in civil discourse. After all, when you have the Vice President dropping the F bomb on the floor of the Senate while not being censored, and can turn on any soap opera or Comedy Central and hear far more colorful language, let alone listening to rap lyrics, the lines of propriety over the years seem to have blurred.

Further, not being a far Right, Born Again Christian member of the Republican Party, being one who embraces Freedom of Speech, and a Woman’s Right to Choice, I tend to be more liberal, accepting and tolerant in viewing what others say and write, am perhaps less easily offended by others arrangement of words upon a written page.

Maybe the board could help me in my effort of not stepping over the lines of their subjective version of propriety again in using words or phrases this board considers inappropriate or disrespectful language? Perhaps the board could put forth for me, a list of words or passages they will not allow in documents presented for their consideration? For instance, from my own perspective and views, stating that the NRC stands for No Regulatory Control is not an inappropriate remark, and I have even heard similar remarks by elected officials. I would hate to inadvertently find myself again being censured, singled out for scolding despite my best efforts at exhibiting restraint and decorum in my presentations to this board.

As a part of this apology to the board, I certify that I will refrain, to the best of my ability, as is required by the order attempting to limit my freedom of speech, to refrain from rude or disrespectful language in all written and oral statements that I hereafter submit or otherwise make in the coarse of this proceeding. I point out, that what is rude or disrespectful is very subjective in nature, as the board’s order in this matter attests to. Therefore, though I shall strive mightily in this task, there are no guarantees that I will not offend any one in the presentation of my contentions. I find Entergy’s application both rude and disrespectful to my community and myself, but that is my own subjective opinion on the matter. Despite my most diligent efforts, despite my certifying that I shall avoid rude and disrespectful language in my presentation to the board, how others perceive those presentations is not within my control. As example, if one looks at the dictionary definition of prick(s):

Main Entry:

¹prick

Pronunciation:

\ˈprik\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English prikke, from Old English prica; akin to Middle Dutch pric prick

Date:

before 12th century

1: a mark or shallow hole made by a pointed instrument2 a: a pointed instrument or weapon b: a sharp projecting organ or part3: an instance of pricking or the sensation of being pricked: as a: a nagging or sharp feeling of remorse, regret, or sorrow b: a slight sharply localized discomfort prick of a needle>4usually vulgar : penis 5 usually vulgar : a spiteful or contemptible man often having some authority.

I specifically refer the reader to definition number 5, usually (BUT NOT ALWAYS) vulgar: a spiteful or contemptible man often having some authority. Now, from my perspective, based on what I feel was and is a spiteful ruling, the use of the word when I submitted my response to the board seemed accurate. From my own subjective perspective, it seems like and appropriate use of the word within the context it was used. I freely admit that I gave no thought to the fact that certain thin skinned or puritan people might take offense of its use in a sentence, in a document submitted to this board. So again, I do humbly apologize, since it is obvious by this boards visceral reaction that offense was taken. I shall endeavor in all future correspondence to avoid such offense on the part of the board.

I further certify, that I have read 10 CFR Part 2, and all orders of the board that I have been given a copy of, and further, I certify that I will abide by said rule, and the orders of this board to the best of my ability, based on my understanding of the rule, and orders of this board as they have been written.

It is noted for the record, that Sherwood Martinelli and FUSE USA resubmitted our contentions prior to this order, and there is a good likelihood that this board might find certain views and passages subjectively objectionable. As they say, one can not UNRING the bell, nor can we go back through our filing in seven short days playing the part of word/phrase police, censoring our verbiage to make sure we have not offended this board or other parties to this License Renewal Process. So, erring on the side of safety, I apologize in advance for any particular word use in our almost 500 page filing that this board takes objection to, and again certify, that moving forward, as the Censor Order requires, work diligently to even more carefully choose the words and phrases I use in expressing myself, so as to avoid using rude, obnoxious or offensive language, even if said words would accurately express the facts as I see them.

Lastly, though Sherwood Martinelli herein has officially complied with the order of this board, I do not waive my right to appeal said order.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sherwood Martinelli

FUSE USA

Peekskill, New York 10566

http://www.fuseusa.org

Certificate of Service

A copy of the above letter of apology was sent via email to all parties. Further, said letter is being mailed out via normal first class mail to all parties.

Sherwood Martinelli

December 3^rd, 2007

FUSE USA

351 Dyckman Street

Peekskill, New York 10566

http://www.fuseusa.org

(914) 293-7458

UCS: Nuclear Safety Project

Via: Treehugger
10. 2.06

There are different ways to measuring the safety of a nuclear power plant. Counting only the number of accidents or meltdowns at nuclear plants would give you an incomplete picture of their overall safety. The Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project took another route and analyzed the number of times nuclear reactors experienced extended shutdowns in the new report Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-plus Reactor Outages. Their results were eye-opening.

Since the first commercial nuclear power plant opened 40 years ago, there have been 51 reactor shutdowns at nuclear power plants. Most of these shutdowns, 36 of them, were due to widespread safety problems in the plants that could no longer be ignored.

The root cause of these continued safety shutdowns is a combination of inadequate attention to safety by plant owners and lax oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

In the weeks and months leading up to the start of a year-plus outage, the people living nearby face an unnecessarily high risk of an accident that could release radiation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission must undergo fundamental change or it will only be a matter of time before additional reactors will suffer through year-plus outages – or worse, a nuclear accident.

UCS is calling on the NRC to follow federal regulations to identify and fix problems in a timely manner. The NRC must also alert plant owners about non-hardware problems and expand its oversight efforts when programmatic breakdowns are identified.

You can visit our Web site to see a list of U.S. plants experiencing outages and the reasons behind their shutdowns. UCS is also asking people to write their members of Congress to demand these reforms.

TEPCO Earthquake Damage FAR WORSE Than Thought

Earlier this summer when the TEPCO reactors were struck down by a massive earthquake in Japan, Green Nuclear Butterfly said the damage was FAR MORE EXTENSIVE than the company was actually letting on. We further said, that the IAEA, NEI and the NRC in the name of the Nuclear Renaissance would try to cover it all up...one slight problem with their devious plan. We here at Green Nuclear Butterfly were right on target...in breaking news today, TEPCO is announcing they have a SERIOUS PROBLEM with a stuck control rod! LET THE DECOMMISSIONING BEGIN! For those keeping score, we remind you that Entergy's Indian Point was also egegiously built on an Earthquake Fault.

Control rod stuck in Kashiwazaki Kariwa unit
19 October 2007

Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) reported that a control rod cannot be removed from the reactor of unit 7 of its Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant. The unit shut down automatically when an earthquake struck the plant on 16 July.

A control rod is moved in or out of the central core of a nuclear reactor in order to control the neutron flux - increase or decrease the number of neutrons which will split further uranium atoms. This in turn affects the thermal power of the reactor, the amount of steam generated, and hence the electricity produced. They are usually combined into control rod assemblies and inserted into guide tubes within a nuclear fuel element.

In an emergency, the control rods are quickly inserted all the way into the fuel assembly to stop the fission reaction and shut down the reactor unit. All 205 of the 4-metre-long control rods at Kashiwazaki Kariwa 7's reactor were automatically inserted into the fuel as soon as the 6.8 magnitude earthquake hit, Tepco said.

Control rods stand vertically within a reactor core. In pressurised water reactors (PWRs), they are inserted from above, the control rod drive mechanisms being mounted on the reactor pressure vessel head. However, due to the necessity of a steam dryer above the core of a boiling water reactor (BWR), such as the Kashiwazaki Kariwa units, this design requires insertion of the control rods from underneath the core. BWRs require the hydraulic insertion of control rods in the event of an emergency shutdown, using water from a special tank that is under high nitrogen pressure.

Tepco said that in order to conduct in-core inspections, it had removed the lid of the reactor's pressure vessel and has started removing fuel assemblies and control rods from the reactor core to the fuel storage pools. So far, 106 control rods have been removed from the reactor. However, the company discovered that one of the control rods was jammed in the reactor core.

Company officials said that one reason for the rod becoming stuck could be that devices intended to prevent the rod from slipping remained locked. Another possibility is that the earthquake distorted the shape of the facility, preventing the rod from moving. Checking the exact cause, however, is likely to take some time as water that fills the reactor must first be drained before its interior can be examined.

At the time of the earthquake, three of the seven reactors at Kashiwazaki Kariwa - units 3, 4 and 7 - were in operation. Those reactors shut down safely as tremors began. Unit 2 was in the process of starting operation, and shut down automatically as well. Units 1, 5 and 6 were not operating as periodic inspections were being carried out.

The earthquake resulted in water being shaken from cooling pools of all the units and some of this drained away to be discharged to sea. In addition, many barrels of solid low-level radioactive waste were knocked over and an external electrical transformer failed and caught fire.

The discovery of the jammed control rod is likely to further delay the resumption of plant operations. All seven reactors at the plant remain offline while damage from the earthquake is assessed.

Indian Point Leaky Maps

Indian Point Two Tritium Map-Above
Indian Point Ground Water Contaminant Flows-Below



Study these test well results, and the print we have bolded...if this tritium is NOT characteristic of what one would expect to find in the Spent Fuel Pool, then WHERE is the tritium LEAKING FROM? In short, it is leaking from the HOT SIDE of Indian Point...more specifically, from the reactor coolant system, or the reactor itself, as in the internals. Further, the fact that the tritium is being found, means it is contaminating ground water, and in more than one way.

Well Sample Date Location Tritium

MW-34 12/13/2005 Transformer Yard 63,900 p/CI/l
MW-35 12/13/2005 Transformer Yard 42, 300 p/CI/l
MW-33 12/13/2005 Transformer Yard 142,000 p/CI/l

These results are above drinking water standards but below the levels found in MW-1 11. No other isotopes characteristic of spent fuel pool water was found in any of these sample results. These wells are test wells and are not part of any drinking water system and do not pose a threat to workers or the general public. These wells will continue to be sampled as results can vary due to environmental conditions especially rainfall, at the time the sample is drawn.

NOW, moving on in the same document...STORM DRAINS. If they are taking tritium samples from storm drains, this means, contrary to NRC and Entergy claims, that the tritium IS LEAVING THE SITE.

Storm Water Drains Now Included in Test Program In order to develop a comprehensive data set that will lead to a conceptual model of ground water movement on site, samples for tritium were taken from the storm drains in and adjacent to the transformer yard.

Test results showed detectable levels for tritium in the storm drains ranging from less than 2000 pCi/L in sample locations 17, 18 and 19 to a high of between 12,000 and 51,000 pCi/L at sample location MHI-6 nearmonitoring well MW- 11. The remaining wells tested between 2000 and 5300 pCi/L. Storm drains at Indian Point flow into the discharge canal. True...but, that STORM RUN OFF then flows INTO THE HUDSON River.

There are three NRC ADAMS documents that one should look at to start, and these are:

ml061320083
ml061160481
ml061320105

Lastly, under the heading, "One picture is worth 1,000 words, I give you two."

This one is rather interesting...Notice the crack running in a horizontal direction. Notice the sign hanging there warning people that the area is RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED. Two schools of thought surround this photograph that was taken on the Indian Point site...one, is a picture of the crack in spent fuel pool number two. The other, that it is a picture taken along the wall of the reactor itself...either way, it is pretty damning.

Patrick Moore at Indian Point NRC scoping meeting

Courtesy: Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.

NIRS replies to New York Post

Michael Mariotte
NIRS

The New York Post is living in a nuclear industry fantasyland if it truly believes environmentalists consider nuclear power to be "clean." In just 5 weeks, more than 400 environmental groups (and 4,000+ people) have signed a simple statement: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power." And more signatures arrive daily. The Post’s argument doesn’t mesh with the facts.

The Post is also off-base when it claims no one ever has died from nuclear power in the U.S. Try that line on the Navajo people, many of whom gave their lives in the dirty business of uranium mining, and see how seriously you get taken.

Nuclear power remains what it always has been: dangerous, dirty and uneconomic.

FUSE is attempting to force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do what it refuses to do: ensure adequate oversight of the aging, unsafe Indian Point nuclear facility. New Yorkers should be applauding FUSE.

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Takoma Park, MD

Note to editor: you can see the statement referred to above, as well as the signers, at www.nirs.org

File Your Own 2.206 Request On Emergency Siren Failure

We are encouraging citizens of Westchester, Rockland, Dutchess and Orange counties to hold Entergy accountable. You can file your own 2.206 Petition with the NRC by emailing chairman@nrc.gov stating the action you want. For your convenience we have copied below a sample that has just been sent this evening. Make sure you include your name, address and phone number for it to be considered legally filed. Make sure to CC your elected officials, and ask them to sign on, or file a similiar request on behalf of your community.

Dear Chairman's Office:

As allowed under 10 CFR 2.206, I am formally requesting immediate action from the Commission that would shut down both Indian Point 2 and 3 until such time as their emergency siren system with back up power has met ALL FEMA requirements, and passed all necessary tests required to be certified as and acceptable emergency notification siren system.

First, to put this formal request into perspective, we should review some history. On January 31, 2006, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Order) to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or licensee) requiring the licensee to install backup power for the Indian Point siren system, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, by January 30, 2007. Interestingly, perhaps to save money, to do the job on the cheap, Entergy chose a new system that FAILS to meet design basis.

On January 11, 2007, Entergy submitted a request to relax the Order, to extend the deadline to April 15, 2007. On January 23, 2007, the NRC approved Entergy's request after wrongfully finding that Entergy had made a good faith effort to comply with the Order and had demonstrated good cause to relax the Order. The NRC failed to explain how they came about deciding Entergy's good faith, but it is obvious that the community being forced to play host to this aging, dilapidated nuclear relic from days gone by disagreed then, and as it turned out, with good cause. ( I reference here the 2.206 petition of Thomas Gurdziel) It is no accident that there is now a law suit against the very company that our siren system comes from for a similar failure to perform issue at another nuclear reactor site.

On April 13, 2007, Entergy submitted a second request to relax the Order, to extend the deadline to August 31, 2007. On April 13, 2007, the NRC denied the relaxation request and stated that the NRC would consider action under the NRC's Enforcement Policy. On April 23, 2007, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation and
Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty for $130,000 (EA 07-092) to Entergy because of its failure to meet the April 15, 2007, deadline.

The NRC acts as if this $130,000 fine was severe...we as a community disagreed, as each day the siren system is not in operation is another separate and unique violation. Further, that $130,000 fine represents less than ONE PERCENT of the actual cost of the new siren system. Despite the fine, Entergy was given another four months to have the system up and running. Where were 120 separate fines? On or about August 24th they conducted a test which FAILED MISERABLY. I immediately informed appropriate agencies of the government, including the NRC, and it is pointed out here, that the NRC has failed completely in getting back to me on the complaint I filed over a month ago, despite the fact that FEMA findings outlined in and eight page letter to Entergy validated my complaints about the shortcoming of the system.

This week in a Journal News article by Greg Clary dated September 25th, 2007 we have just learned that Entergy has requested a face to face meeting with FEMA to find out just what they need to do to GET THE SYSTEM RIGHT.

Indian Point seeks talks with FEMA on sirens

By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: September 25, 2007)

BUCHANAN -Indian Point officials want a face-to-face meeting with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to make sure they know exactly what will satisfy regulators who so far have found the nuclear plant's new siren system "inadequate."

In a 12-page letter obtained by The Journal News, the company said it wants to go over in detail with FEMA officials the unresolved technical issues such as volume, sustainability of siren sound and overall system reliability.

Jim Steets, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear, acknowledged yesterday that the in-depth, in-person discussions would further delay the new sirens' operation.

"It's impossible to know how long it will take us," Steets said. "We're committed to moving quickly, but only to FEMA's satisfaction."

We have heard Steets false promises before, have been promised a working functioning emergency siren system for quite sometime. Problem is, it has NOT BE DELIVERED, and the old system has a horrid track system of failures.

For citizens living within the shadow of Indian Point's Peak Fatality Zone, the Emergency Siren System is our first, and perhaps best chance of protecting our selves and our families in the event of a terrorist attack and/or significant radiological event at the Indian Point Entergy Center site. NRC's first response in considering these types of 2.206 petitions is to routinely dismiss them, to claim we have not raised a basis for relief. The twin towers that no longer grace our skyline are PROOF that terrorist can mount a successful attack on American infrastructure. The deplorable condition of the systems and components of Indian Point (leaks, spent fuel leaks, serious Boric Acid Corrosion (BAC) concerns with the reactor vessel head, as well as sleeping guards show there is a very real risk of a significant radiological event at the plant.

As is witnessed by FEMA's failure of the Entergy Emergency Alarm system in Auguest, coupled with Entergy's expressed desire to meet face to face with Entergy makes it apparent that our community's first line of defense, our early warning system if you will is not working adequately enough to protect us in the event of a significant radiological event. In short, we ARE AT RISK, and that risk can be greatly mitigated by placing both reactors into COLD SHUT DOWN until such time as the Emergency Siren system as is required by the NRC Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Order) to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc has been approved by, and signed off on by FEMA.

NRC's decision in August to simply take a hands off, wait for FEMA approach is unacceptable, and is placing human life at great risk should and emergency event occur at Indian Point. I am therefore implementing my legal right as a stakeholder to request formally that the Commission issue and order effective immediately that Entergy's IP2 LLC and IP3 reactors be placed into COLD SHUT DOWN until their Emergency Sirens are fully approved by FEMA and the NRC, and the system is operating within the 96 percent acceptable zone. Additionally, it is requested that the Commission use its vast discretionary powers to fine Entergy $130,000 per day from today, September 28th, 2007 forward until such time as they have complied with the NRC's Confirmatory Order. Almost eight months after the original due date for delivery of this alarm system, and we as a community are STILL AT RISK. Yet, during that time, Entergy has found time to file License Renewal Applications, file a formal request for license transfer for over half of their fleet, and rammed through a SIGNIFICANT license amendment.

Placing the reactors into Cold Shut Down until the siren system functions as required will significantly lower our community's risks, and the fines should be adequately incentive for Entergy to place their corporate priorities where they belong, which is taking care of Public Health and Safety as JOB ONE.

Respectfully Requested,


Sherwood Martinelli
FUSE USA

Peekskill, New York 10566

My name is Gary Shaw and I live less than six miles from Indian Point.

IF NRC CAN’T DEFINE STANDARDS, THEIR JUDGMENTS CAN’T BE VALIDATED

My name is Gary Shaw and I live less than six miles from Indian Point.

I work as a designer of marketing research projects and a data analyst, so I am very familiar with the use of benchmarks and action standards. I spend considerable energy to ensure that the metrics in my research that are used as the basis for business decisions are well defined and consistent with established protocols. That is one of the reasons that I am so concerned about the NRC’s evaluations of Indian Point and the relicensing process overall.

One of the terms that the NRC uses repeatedly is “reasonable assurance,” and this term is used in evaluations of a range of operations and systems, but is not at all clearly defined. A primary example of this is the agency’s approval of the Indian Point Emergency Evacuation plan after James Lee Witt issued a report that the plan was “inadequate to protect the public from an unacceptable dose of radiation,” On a Friday in July of 2003, FEMA, under the infamous Michael Brown, approved the Evacuation Plan and that judgment was quickly accepted by the NRC, saying the plan provided reasonable assurance that it would be effective. Ironically, on that very day, all the major roadways in Westchester were jammed through the entire day because of a single accident on the George Washington Bridge during the morning rush hour. I still wonder how the NRC defined “reasonable assurance” for that ridiculous judgment. When I think of that day I have a mental image of those traffic jams happening while Indian Point’s sirens wailed. That is, if the sirens were working that day.

Now the NRC is considering extending the operating licenses of Indian Point units 2 and 3 for twenty more years beyond their expirations in 2013 and 2015 respectively, and will cite reasonable assurance that the plants will remain safe and environmentally benign for that twenty year extension. We know that there are an undetermined number of leaks of radioactive elements into the environment and that the sources of those leaks remain uncertain. Consequently, there are no known plans to stop the leakage. Especially disturbing is that large sections of pipes are not accessible to inspection, and the only way for the NRC to evaluate whether those pipes have corroded or will remain viable for twenty more years is to dig test wells and declare that there is not currently a leak at that site at that time. And since Indian Point 1 has been non-operational for decades and that plant is leaking with no plan for stopping the leakage, wouldn’t the discovery of additional leaks at some point in the future simply mean that we have more uncorrectable problems?

If the NRC is not capable of stating how many linear feet of piping are inaccessible or how many thirty-five year old welds are inaccessible, and where each of them is located, how will they define “reasonable assurance” that those pipes and welds will be viable until the years 2033 and 2035? Since we already know that this is the only nuclear plant in the country leaking Strontium 90 and Cesium 137, wouldn’t that information would be important.

We also know that prior test wells found concentrations of contamination at many times the EPA level for drinking water, but since the leaks are not currently going into known drinking water sources, the NRC has dismissed them as non-hazardous. I would like to know what specific radiological readings would define an unacceptable level that is not going directly into a known drinking source.

In other words, if the NRC cannot provide a well defined set of metrics, how can they establish standards that must be met to warrant twenty additional years of operations for this aging and leaking facility. We have already seen the NRC’s idea of reasonable assurance. With the potential danger of radiological contamination, how can we accept this agency’s judgments if they cannot define their standards and prove the validity of their metrics?

Gary Shaw
Member of the Steering Committees of Croton Close Indian Point (CrotonCIP) and the Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC).

Exelon and Entergy Now Hiring...position...Sleeping Security Guard

Well, seems we have yet another example of SLEEPING GUARDS at the nations two largest nuclear giants, Entergy and Exelon. Not to worry though, the NRC swears we are safe from a terrorist attack, and even if there is one, these fine sleeping men are ready to DEFEND.

Sep 26, 2007 12:10 am US/Eastern

Nuclear Plant Guards Caught Sleeping On The Job

Walt Hunter
Reporting

(CBS 3) YORK COUNTY, Pa. Major security changes are underway at an area nuclear plant following the discovery of several guards sleeping on the job.

The guards were caught on tape sleeping on duty, secretly taped by a fellow officer.

The images are all the more disturbing because their job is protecting the Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant, which is one of America's largest.

"It's outrageous that they're not ready to go," Peter Stockton said.

Stockton is with a government watchdog group.

The area where the guards were taped sleeping on different shifts and days, is called "the ready room."

The sleeping guards are supposed to be poised to spring into action immediately if there is an emergency.

"Certainly every one of these officers should have been wide awake and ready to go," said a former Peach Bottom officer who asked not to be identified. "Some of these officers should have been patrolling the facility."

The owner of Peach Bottom, Exelon Nuclear, said the sleeping is in its words, "not acceptable" and they've now terminated their contract with Wackenhut Security to protect Peach Bottom.

Exelon does maintain that, because the sleeping guards are only part of a much wider security net, there was no risk to the public.

"The actions we have seen on the videotape and found in our internal inquiry did not directly impact the safety and security of the plant," a statement from Exelon read.

Wackenhut Security, the same company providing security at Peach Bottom, also protects three other Exelon facilities: Three Mile Island outside Harrisburg, the Limerick Nuclear Plant in Montgomery County, and Oyster Creek in New Jersey.

However, while Wackenhut is being removed from Peach Bottom, Exelon said the company will continue to protect the other three nuclear facilities, pending the outcome of a security review.

"You're only as strong as your weakest link, and you don't want your weakest link to be a security guard sleeping on the job," Eric Epstein of a nuclear watchdog group.

Epstein, chairman of a community nuclear watchdog group "Three Mile Island Alert" said the sleeping guards show nuclear plant owners should stop outsourcing security to private companies and instead rely on officers trained and managed by the Federal Government.

"Clearly we're concerned about what we saw," Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrator Sam Collins said.

After viewing the tape, the NRC now has a special five member team conducting what it calls a "special security inspection" at Peach Bottom.

"What we saw is not aligned with our expectations or Exelon's expectations and we will pursue it on that basis," Collins said.

The NRC will issue a report 30 days after its inspection.

Meanwhile, Wackenhut calls it quote "an anomaly," and said "it was a small number of security personnel that were not performing as they should have."

Get your "No more nukes" on in San Francisco

That’s right, break out the picket signs -- your favorite apocalypse is on the reprise. Irvine Rep. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has introduced legislation to repeal the 31-year ban on new nuclear power plants and launched a ballot initiative.

On Sept. 12, the state’s Republican party unanimously voted to support the bill for more nuclear power, which is being touted as safe, clean, reliable, and affordable -- all adjectives the industry has yet to merit.

It's also being called “emissions-free,” a handy moniker for a power source in our globally-warmed future. It's being promoted by pro-clearcutting, pro-GMO "environmentalists" that happen to pull paychecks from the nuclear industry.

Pro-nukes fans are now gathering the 433,000 signatures needed to put the bill on California's June 2008 ballot.

A 1976 California state law banned new nuclear plants until a permanent storage facility for the radioactive waste was established. Meanwhile, said permanent facility – Nevada’s Yucca Mt. -- suffered another setback on Sept. 4 when a federal judge ruled the state could suspend water permits for drilling at the site – further delaying a project that is already seven years overdue.

Spent-fuel nuclear waste is currently stored on the sites of nuclear power plants – which has raised concerns about safety from terrorist attacks. CA Attorney General Jerry Brown recently filed a petition with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, arguing that its waste confidence ruling is inadequate – meaning, we don’t have much faith in your determination that the pools of water where used up nuclear fuel rods bob like swimming pool toys are safe.

Track back:
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/09/get_your_no_more_nukes_on.html

Comment from Green Nuclear Butterfly correspondent Harold One Feather, on site now reporting from San Francisco:

I feel that if we can expose the nuclear mythos here in California, we have an excellent chance at stopping on the East Coast.

The crux of their initiative is that they need cheap sources of uranium which they know is on Indian land; hence the nuclear industry's focus on the waste and safety issues, rather than on the eventual forced mining on Indian land.

My current theory is that, prior to the nuclear renaissance, the mining industry sought and obtained increased tariffs and other charges on african uranium mining imports since their bottom lines were being negatively affected, not realizing that on the horizon their dreams were becoming a reality.

The nuclear renaissance caught all sides unaware! The anti-nuclear movement didn't see it coming nor did the pro-nuclear faction...no one was prepared for its implications. Now as all sides are coming to grips with the potentials, it is our turn to place our names and legacy to forefront of the upcoming opposition to the nuclear renaissance.

If California falls, so does Indian Point, Calvert Cliffs, USEC, Y-12, SRS/MOX, LES and Yucca MT.

Two News Items...Cracked Japanese Reactor, Homer Simpson Protests

Nuclear Reactor on The Brink of Chernobyl in Japan after early morning earthquake...a bullet dodged...this time.

Two breaking news items to report here:

1. Japan has suddenly changed its tune, and has admitted the reactor shaken to its core in the western coastal city of Kashiwazaki, near Niigata, about 160 miles northwest of Tokyo is spewing forth radioactive contaminants into the Sea of Japan...the NRC has offered to SEND HELP. Like a freaking egg, a newer, yet still very fragile reactor core has BROKEN UDER PRESSURE, and here we sit in the Hudson Valley with not one, but two reactors built right on top of and earthquake fault line.

Nuclear scare after Japan quake

A strong earthquake in central Japan has damaged a large nuclear power plant causing a leak of radioactive material, officials at the plant have said.

2. Meanwhile, closer to home in New York city, seems some protests/street actions are shaping up in New York City for the opening next week of the new Simpson's movie...what better opportunity to bring attention to Indian Points failing reactors that are leaking strontium 90 and tritium into the Hudson River? The new Simpson movie, and the evacuation scene that plays a crucial part in the movie are a perfect back drop to use in bringing public attention to the very real fact that Entergy and the NRC's evacuation plan for Indian Point is a non workable piece of shit.

We are watching our news sources to bring you up to the minute information on Japan's radiation leaks...all we can do, is thank God that the epicenter of the earthquake was no closer than it was. Sadly, the NRC could care less about public safety, and will continue to rubber stamp license renewals in the name of a Nuclear Renaissance....after all, the citizens of Westchester County, and New York City are expendable in Entergy's eyes.

DOE and NRC Conference Participants Mailing List Found On Internet!

Imagine my surprise when I did a Google search for an individual, and found not one, but two very substantial contact lists. One each from a NRC and a DOE conference. If you ever wanted to send out a mailing of your Anti Nuclear message to the other side for educational purposes, these are the two lists to use.

NRC's Comprehensive Contact List For 2006 Conference Participants-Great mailing list for those wanting to send out your Anti-Nuclear Message. Includes names, organization, address, phone, and in most cases their email address. Found doing a Google Search by person's name. If I were any of these people, would be thinking twice about NRC's ability to protect information. If the document gets taken down, contact the GNB for the Publicly Available and downloaded mailing list.

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conference-symposia/ric/past/2006/reglist-03-09-06.pdf

Also found in the same name search is a similar participants contact list for a conference on Hydrogen Energy hosted by DOE! No email addresses, but everything else is included.

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/38616-11_appa.pdf

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.

Entergy Has Filed For Indian Point License Renewal, The Battle is Joined, GNB Mounts Its First Counter Offensive

Plans are afoot, a counter offensive is about to be unleashed as the Anti Nuclear Grassroots Green movement prepares for the battle that must be waged to stop Entergy's wrongful re-license of Indian Point. Individual stakeholders have rights in the process that we must all exercise. To that end, as publisher of GNB, today I've launched the first of my own counter attacks against a corrupt and bankrupt NRC regulatory process. I encourage our readership to take similar actions, here and in every reactor host community across America. The battle is joined, and we can only lose if we believe the lie that we cannot effect change.

Letter of Allegation Sent Today:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of the Inspector General
Mail Stop T5-D28
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-2738

Dear Inspector General:

Please consider this letter as a formal allegation and/or verified complaint against employees of the NRC, as well as the Commissioners who voted on the currently used/in force DBT (Design Basis Threat). Said persons have in the past, and continue to place human health and safety at risk through their wantonly and egregiously negligent, perhaps criminal actions aimed at protecting licensees at the expense of the safety and well being of citizens living in reactor host communities, specifically the host community in and around Entergy's Indian Point facility, of which I am a member/stakeholder.

1. The 2005 Energy Policy Act among other things spells out MANDATORY STEPS that the NRC were/are required to take to ensure the public that nuclear reactor sites are safe, and that NRC's DBT is designed in a fashion to assure success against such a terrorist attack and/or nuclear incident. In his Senate sub-committee testimony, Marvin Fertel, vice-president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, acknowledged that the current DBT does not represent the full spectrum of terrorist threats. The key reason for this, is that the NRC and the commissioners themselves gave the NEI undue influence, allowed the NEI to draft a DBT to their liking, rather than drafting a DBT which would provide the public with any real level of adequate protections against a terrorist attack. In fact, Mr. Fertel in his testimony all but admits to their organization's undue influence in NRC's policy and rule making process when he states, "NEI is responsible for developing policy for the commercial nuclear industry." (emphasis added) A cursory examination of NRC's underlying documents would show time and again NEI's desires were heeded by NRC staff, too the point where the NRC even uses the NEI's exact wording in the creation of NRC policy and rules.

Throughout the entire creation of the DBT, the NRC staff and Commissioners gave the NEI and those it represents too much sway in the creation of the DBT, and without exception, public health and safety took a back seat to the nuclear industry's financial concerns, and corporate bottom lines. Specific areas where public safety has taken a back seat to shareholder interests include, but are not limited to the following:

A. The NEI is allowed to create the attack teams for force on force exercises, thus allowing their members advance notice of what they will be defending against. The DOE's offer of providing an attack team for these force on force exercises, similar to the ones employed to test defense readiness at DOE nuclear sites, was given no real due consideration by the NRC staff, primarily because NEI objected to it. This has created a situation wherein citizen/stakeholders living within close proximity to DOE facilities are afforded a far higher level of protection than those of us living within close proximity of commercial nuclear reactor sites.

B) When the NRC team of staffers created the first draft of the DBT, it included a host of commonly used terrorist weapons of choice. This list was compiled after careful discussion with law enforcement, and a full review of inter/intra agency intelligence. The NEI immediately objected to this list, claiming the costs of defending against such a list was cost prohibitive, and that two of the weapons on the list (even though standard terrorist issue weaponry) would render almost all current reactor site defensive structures obsolete. NRC staff gave into the NEI's wishes/demands and removed all but two of the weapons (Shoulder Launched Grenades [SLG] and a high power rifle using armor piercing bullets. When the commissioners voted on the DBT, after private back room discussions with the higher echelons of NEI, these two weapons were removed from the list. Fact...these two commonly used terrorist weapons render bullet resistant guard towers and shielded areas within the reactor and control room employing bullet resistant glass useless and in grave peril if attacked by a well trained, well armed and dedicated group of terrorists. Rather than protect human health and safety, rather than creating a DBT that would adequately prepare sites for a terrorist attack both NRC staff and commissioners sacrificed our safety on the altar of nuclear industry profits and convenience. The GAO's report to Congress tends to agree and support this allegation.

C. The NRC staff charged with creating the DBT settled upon a particular size explosives-laden vehicle. The NEI objected, claiming that protecting against a vehicle of such enormous size was overly expensive. The commission again gave the nuclear industry their way by GREATLY DECREASING THE SIZE/WEIGHT of the explosives laden vehicle. One commissioner seemed to justify this decision with the failed logic that a vehicle any larger would more than likely be spotted by and stopped by off site law enforcement before reaching the reactor site. It is noted here, that such thinking includes off-site security measures in protecting a reactor site, yet the NRC does not include testing of said off-site security they are relying on in the force on force exercises.

D) The NEI objected to both the size of the terrorist attack force, and the amount of weight (thus weaponry) each attack force member could carry. Again, everything the NEI wanted, they were given as both the size of the attack force, and the weight allotted for weaponry of each member was significantly reduced, thus GREATLY REDUCING the attack a nuclear reactor site would have to defend against in force on force exercises, which in turn, greatly reduced safety levels for members of the general public in the case of a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor facility.

2. To avoid the transparency that would expose the DBT for what it is, to allow the continued rubber stamping of every license renewal application coming into the NRC headquarters, the agency and staff members involved in re-licensing (directly and/or indirectly) are ignoring federal law and statute where it suits them, specifically, but not limited to NEPA's requirement that the potential impact of terrorist attacks at nuclear facilities be considered in the license renewal application process. Knowing full well that many reactor communities do not have the financial means to litigate against the NRC and a well funded nuclear industry, the NRC has decided to ignore a recent Ninth Circuit Court decision on this very issue...in fact, Neil Sheehan was callously quoted as saying, "What happens in California stays in California..." when he was asked what effects that ruling would have on other license renewal applications. The NRC's relying on a community's financial inability to defend itself ADEQUATELY in the federal courts amounts to defacto Economic Racism on the part of the NRC and its staff, including the commissioners, and the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, which has held that no such analysis is required.

These egregious actions on the part of the NRC, their collusion with the NEI and key nuclear industry players (Entergy, Exelon, NuStart, Duke Power, TVA) has threatened the lives, safety and security of every stakeholder citizen living within 50 miles of a reactor, with those of us living within ten miles of same at the most peril. Because of the imminent danger we are in due to the negligent and capricious acts spelled out above, as the filer of this allegation, I seek the following actions and protections:

1. A fast-tracked investigation of the allegations and charges contained herein with any criminal wrongdoing found being turned over to the United States Department of Justice for criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

2. Evaluation of the issues as spelled out to determine if there exist any issues that have abridged my civil liberties, as defined in both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

3. There be issued by the NRC Commissioners an order halting all license renewal activities until the issues contained herein have been resolved, as allowing them to move forward when a woefully inadequate DBT, which was created through criminal collusion, fails in providing the bare minimum security and safety protections afforded by NRC 10 CFR Rules and Regulations, and other federal statutes and laws, puts every nuclear reactor licensee in a position where they are defacto in violation of their licenses, and thusly subject to license revocation, and or other penalties.

When the NRC staff allow lobbying to cross the line into collusion, not only is the public trust eroded, but our health, safety and security is put at grave risk. When corporate profits supercede the NRC's duty and responsibility to protect human health and safety, the agency stands at the brink of a dark abyss, ready to sell its soul for the goal of a Nuclear Renaissance, and has sacrificed its own right to govern and regulate the industry.

Respectfully Submitted

Sherwood Martinelli


Reference Documents

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS21131.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06555t.pdf

http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/gao041064t_nuclear1204.pdf

http://www.ig.energy.gov/documents/IG-0749.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0739.pdf

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=1898

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpr222.pdf

http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/archives/budget/FY05_HRpt_108_554.pdf

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/us_military/162581.html

http://www.numat.at/list%20of%20papers/gesamtproceedings.pdf

http://www.iae.kyoto-u.ac.jp/kbutsu/files/AR/AL2002.pdf

http://www.wtec.org/loyola/pdf/nanousws.pdf

http://hss.energy.gov/SecPolicy/directives/M_470.4-1c1_Planning.pdf