Should Governors Use National Guard Troops To Close Down and Secure Aging Reactors

Time and again (49 times to be exact) a biased and prejudice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has ignored the will of the people, ignored safety and health concerns, and granted NRC reactor licensees 20 year extensions to operate. Anything they find incovenient (such as radioactive waste) it is simply deemed to be out of scope, and when citizens such as myself have the balls to tell seemingly ignorant ass monkeys like Lawrence G. McDade the truth, that the boards are made up of Pro-Industry Pricks, he thumps his chest, and tosses out our contentions like some anal retentive chimp tripping on LSD. Seems in his w0rld, he believes he is worthy of some respect by virtue of his position, comes from the old school of thought that judges, elected officials and the president of the United States are ENTITLED to our respect by virtue of their office...as the old saying goes, FUCK THAT NOISE. Just for the record, I'd classify George Bush as a prick as well, and would not hesitate to state such to his face.

So, back to the question. 49 communities so far are being FORCED to play host to aging and dangerous reactors for at least 20 more years. The DOE, the NRC and our federal government have FAILED to deal with the waste streams from nuclear power, defacto turning every reactor site into high level radioactive waste storage facilities without adequate safeguards, such as those required if Yucca Mountain ever gets licensed and built. The NRC acts as if it is above the law, and licensees simply buy off whoever they need to in their attempts to keep their aging, leaking, cancer causing facilities up and churning out profit.

Which raises the question...should state governors take manners into their own hands, and use the National Guard to seize control of, and shut down these facilities. Here in New York, the DEC could simply refuse to grant a discharge permit, could demand that the Indian Point facility shut down until such time as it has installed a Closed Cooling system that was promised some 30 years ago. Further, the State Attorney General could state that future committments to come into compliance are inadequate, could state that New York is no longer willing to wait for the Siren Systems to be up and operating correctly. All this being so, and based on the very real reality that the NRC has NEVER TERMINATED a license against the reactor owners wishes, is it time to use our State National Guard to shut down Indian Point? What is George Bush going to do, call out the Army to go to war against us? DOUBTFUL.

The state could hire whatever former Entergy employees were needed to maintain safe shut down, and to decommission the reactors. Might seem harsh, but lets be real. Our community agreed to play host for 40 years, and only if the operator obeyed ALL LAWS and REGULATIONS as written. The NRC has granted Indian Point hundreds of exemptions to the rules, so they have broken their contract with our community. We would be fully within our rights as a state to use our military troops to shut down a dangerous facility that is endangering human health and the environment.

While we are doing some radical thinking, here is some more food for thought. The State of New York, and all counties being forced to pay for Emergency Planning and Security have the LEGAL RIGHT to simply STOP PAYING FOR THOSE COSTS, and the NRC has no choice but to force FEMA to step in and pay them...sure if FEMA were suddenly having to pick up the tab for ENTERGY, they might have a change of heart about the adequacy of Indian Points Emergency plan. By the way, EVERY REACTOR COMMUNITY IN AMERICA HAS THAT RIGHT.

Pilgrim waste needs critical look, AG says

The state has gone to court to force the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to look at the safety of waste storage at Pilgrim. (File/The Boston Globe)

EmailPrint Text size – + By Robert Knox

Globe Correspondent / December 13, 2007

The state attorney general's office has gone to federal court to argue that the storage of nuclear waste at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant should be studied by federal regulators as a possible danger to residents.

more stories like this

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Brock, in oral arguments in the US Court of Appeals in Boston last week, challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's refusal to hold a hearing on the safety of storing spent fuel at the Plymouth plant. Briefs in the case will be prepared over the next month and filed by the end of January.

Brock's office is arguing that the potential risk of fire in the spent-fuel storage pools - whether sparked by accident or terrorism - should be weighed by the NRC in its decision on whether to extend Pilgrim's license for another 20 years.

Last year, the five members of the NRC, appointed by the president, rejected that notion. Instead, they accepted their staff's conclusions that the consequences of a "spent-fuel pool accident" are unlikely to be serious.

The state appealed, leading to last week's hearing.

The possible danger of storing nuclear waste on site has become a rallying cry for critics of the NRC, which regulates the nuclear power industry.

Local advocates, including residents of Plymouth and Duxbury, signed a letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley this week backing her action in taking the spent-fuel issue to court. The letter states that Massachusetts's actions have set a precedent that other states such as New York are following.

The governor and attorney general of New York have gone to court to question the security of the Indian Point reactor.

New York officials contend that the attacks of Sept. 11 changed the nature of risk at nuclear plants, warranting a new and critical look at the safety of on-site spent fuel storage.

A New York Times editorial last week backed that state's actions and also questioned how other plants across the nation, such as Pilgrim, can be permitted to operate with on-site, above-ground nuclear waste storage systems.

While spent nuclear fuel rods are stored outside New York's Indian Point reactor facility, at Pilgrim they are stored in water inside the plant.

Critics of that method, including the National Academy of Sciences, have argued that Pilgrim's storage method renders the plant vulnerable to a spent fuel fire caused by an attack or by human or mechanical error.

Both NRC and Pilgrim officials have repeatedly defended the safety of the plant. The NRC has pointed to security upgrades it required plants to institute after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said his agency took the possibility of a terrorist attack into consideration in previous court challenges and concluded that even under the "most severe, plausible-threat scenarios" - ground assault and aircraft impact - radiation emissions would probably be too low to pose a problem for Pilgrim's neighbors.

Local critics of the NRC say the outcome of the state's appeal may have important consequences for Pilgrim's neighbors.

Without a victory on appeal, "highly toxic spent fuel assemblies will be stored on site for the indefinite future," said Mary Lampert of Pilgrim Watch, a regional advocacy group that also raised the spent fuel storage issue.

The NRC has ruled that both issues of stored nuclear waste and plant security - concerns frequently raised at public meetings held on relicensing in the Plymouth area over the last two years - are outside licensing proceedings and therefore off the table when the NRC decides whether to extend Pilgrim's operating license.

But those issues are considered in the ongoing regulation of the nation's nuclear facilities, the NRC states.

Having heard the oral arguments, the court asked the two parties whether they could agree on a date for holding a review of the state's appeal, Sheehan said.

Amie Breton, spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said the court is expecting written briefs by Jan. 31 if a date has not been set.

In addition to the current appeal, the state has also filed a so-called rule-making petition asking the agency to change its current licensing policy and consider spent fuel storage in relicensing reviews. The appeal was necessary, Lampert said, because relicensing could occur before the petition to change the rules is decided.

Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com.

NRC Trying To LOWER Safety Standards For Reactor Thermal Shock

The NRC today sent out a press release announcing their plans to issue for public comment a draft rule change that will greatly lower a KEY safety standard for continued operation of America's aging fleet of 104 Thermal Shock prone reactors. The press release (#No. 07-125) wrongfully boasts a blantant lie in the title, "NRC PROPOSES IMPROVEMENTS TO REACTOR VESSEL REQUIREMENTS". Lets be very clear from the get go, this proposed rule in no way shape or manner is and IMPROVEMENT of the rule, but instead destroys basic safety margins necessary to protect human health and the environment.

The NRC in the summary report for this proposed improvement to the Reactor Vessel Requirements states in part, "The proposed rule would provide new PTS requirements based on updated analysis methods. This action is desirable because the existing requirements are based on unnecessarily conservative probabilistic fracture mechanics analyses." We here at Green Nuclear Butterfly first draw the publics attention to the key phrase in that comment...unnecessarily conservative! Talk about a buzz word that should send Entergy's non working sirens into overdrive. Let's translate what is really being said...right now, it is believed that up to 47 of the reactors cannot meet, or will soon be unable to meet the criteria as they currently exist in, "The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule, 10 CFR 50.61" and the nuclear industry knows that the number of reactors unable to meet this rule will grow exponentially during the license renewal process. Shutting down reactors, requiring very expensive partial fixes to this problem are not what the NEI and the nuclear industry want, so the SOLUTION? GUT THE RULE!

The thermal shock rule creates a SERIOUS problem for the nuclear industry, as failure to meet this criteria could force the NRC to shut down the reactors, which in turn would KILL the Nuclear Renaissance...cannot have that now can we? Corporate interests must take a FRONT SEAT to public health and safety...right?

This reality is verified when you read passages from the document that discusses the proposed rule, which you can download on ADAM's with this ascension number: ML070570283 One passage states, "Any reactor vessel with materials predicted to exceed the screening criteria in 10 CFR 50.61 may not continue to operate without implementation of compensatory actions or additional plant-specific analyses unless the licensee receives an exemption from the requirements of the rule." The NRC has a horrendous track record of granting their licensees piece meal exemptions from the very regulations meant to protect human health and the environment. Problem is, in the case of reactor core thermal shock, at some point during the period of license renewal, there is a very GREAT CHANCE that every PWR in the aging fleet of American Reactors will be unable to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.61. The answer? Change the rule, lower the SAFETY MARGINS!

It is pointed out here, that 10 CFR 54 requires a licensee seeking license renewal to submit a full and complete list of all exemptions they intend to carry forth into the superceding, and period of additional operation, with and analysis justifying why said exemption should be carried over into the new superceding license. Considering A) Entergy has not done this in their Indian Point LRA, and perhaps not in their other License Renewal Applications for sites like Vermont Yankee and B) I received a FOIA denial from the NRC claiming no such list exists, there is a very good chance that Indian Point and Vermont Yankee have already been granted partial exemptions to this vitally important regulation meant to protect human health and the environment.. Further, this proposed rule is basically defacto proof that Indian Point and Vermont Yankee are probably close too, or in significant violation of the existing rule.

NRC sttes, "No currently operating PWR reactor vessel is projected to exceed the 10 CFR 50.61 screening criteria before the expiration of its 40 year operating license. However, several PWR reactor vessels are approaching the screening criteria, while others are likely to exceed the screening criteria during their first license renewal periods." People look at me like I am crazy when I explain to them that these 20 year license renewals are really going to be 40 year license renewals...I deduced this fact through my own investigations of the proverbial bigger picture. The BOLDED print in the above statement is, in my opinion, pretty damning proof that my assertions on this point are correct. Further, the NRC is not actually telling the whole truth in the statement. I share here, words from and Entergy document used in seeking relief at IP 2.

NRC's proposed Improvement to this rule will eliminate one of the most important public health and safety cornerstones in the 10 CFR regulations. It is absolutely imperiative that every reactor community, every grassroots anti-nuclear group in the entire world prepare to slam our comments into the NRC. This rule must remain intact, or it is only a matter of a few years before America will suffer at least one Chernobyl, if not a series of them.

More Bad News For Nuclear Renaissance Leaking Out of Tokyo electric Power

Interesting Article, with several crucial pieces of new information:

1. The Tokyo Electric Power Company confirmed today that 2,000 tons of water flooded the basement of the building that houses the facility's No. 1 reactor.

This is the first time this piece of information came out, and why put it in tons? Could it be, that TEPCO is hoping not to have to admit publicly that the basement of the building housing reactor number one got flooded with almost half a million gallons of water?

2. An estimated 1.2 cubic meters of radioactive water flowed into the sea, but the company said it is still not certain about the total amount of water that flowed from the pool.

Curious here...how can they claim a release of 1.2 cubic meters of radioactive water into the sea, while claiming they have no idea how much irradiated water leaked from the pool? Especially since their own report admits their low spent pool water sensors went off for all seven spent fuel pools.

3. TEPCO says that during the incident, radioactive material was twice vented into the air.

Seeing as one of these leaks went undetected for three days, shouldn't we be told HOW MUCH leaked into the air? Shouldn't the citizens of Japan be told this?

4. TEPCO has started on repairs of minor damage at the plant, and the company will soon prepare a plan for the detailed check of safety-significant equipment such as the reactor internals, said the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. A detailed inspection of the reactors will be conducted based on that plan.

I am a betting man here, and guessing there is a reason no reactor internal investigations have been done yet...TEPCO wants to let the uproar die down first, then after people have settled down, release the bad news findings a bit at a time so that it does not grab world wide headlines.

5. Minister Amari acknowledged today that the government failed to carefully examine fault lines near nuclear power plants, and said a stricter review system is needed, the Kyodo news agency reported.

Any one care to bet that the NRC could state the same fact about Indian Point, Diablo Canyon and other reactors near seismic faults here in America?

NRC Speaks Out of Its ASS Again-Claims Spent Fuel Pools Are Safe

Armor Piercing Bullets Are All But Standard Issue In a Gang or Terrorist Groups Arsenal, Yet NRC Removed Them From The DBT

Anything in the name of relicensing, including speaking falsehoods...ask Neil Sheehan who seems to have taken lessons from Entergy's Steets...spent fuel is safe from terrorist attacks, and even if the spent fuel pools were successfully attacked, you will be fine, so go hide in your basements and shut the fork up. HEY NEIL...BLOW ME! Seriously your wife (if you have one) must hate your guts for being so sinisterly dishonest. How does your family feel knowing you condone licensed murder of citizens in host communities? Maybe I'll send you one of our Nuclear Dead Baby Dolls and you can take some pictures for our web site at NRC headquarters for us.

Meanwhile, perrenial NUCLEAR BULLY, Entergy is trying to get Pilgrim Watch's last contentions dismissed in a motion for Summary Judgement. You see, the fact that Pilgrim Watch raises some very important issues is beside the point...Entergy wants to avoid a hearing AT ALL COSTS, so they are looking to throw the contentions out on a technicality, using a barrage of Gestapo like thugs with law degrees to find loopholes they can jump through in preserving their profits, instead of doing the right thing and abiding by a host communties desires...face it, the risks of continued hosting of these aging relics far outweigh any benefits to a local community, so Entergy resorts to national statistics, and averages, thus claiming false support and safety standards for their tritium leaking, cancer causing terrorist targets.

Even and internal NRC document admits the NRC has failed to spend adequate time dealing with the potential after should a significant event occur, and a GAO report says the nuclear industry has now stacked the deck in a manner that unfairly tilts the scale between public safety and the nuclear industry's profits...at least I read the report that way. The good news...hell holds a special place for people that think nothing of poisoning and killing local populations. Let's hope the judges see through the legal smoke and mirrors, and admit there are issues of material fact that need to be heard at an open hearing.

By the way, Pilgrim Watch has lost their attorney, and is moving forward as a Pro Se litigant with the answer due in a matter of weeks. So, if any attorneys out there are reading this, and can give them a hand, sure they would be eternally grateful.

NRC doubts terror risk from spent nuclear fuel Let's be Honest...The NRC Will Doubt Anything That Might Reflect Negatively On a Application For License Renewal...Where's Fat Bastard...you get in my stomach right now!

By George Brennan
STAFF WRITER
June 05, 2007

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says in a court-ordered report it continues to believe that storage sites for spent fuel at the nation's nuclear power plants are not at risk of terrorist attack.

While the report doesn't specifically mention the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, it could tip the regulatory agency's hand about an ongoing safety review of the plant.

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant
The spent fuel pool at Pilgrim currently hold 2,602 spent fuel assemblies

The pool is expected to reach its capacity of about 3,700 spent fuel assemblies in 2014,
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant opened in 1972 and is licensed to operate until 2012.
Entergy, the company that owns the plant wants a 20-year extension on the license

Source: Entergy

The Diablo Canyon report, filed last week, was ordered by the Ninth Circuit Court in California. In it, NRC officials determined that in the event of a terrorist attack there would be no "significant effect on the human environment," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said yesterday.

"The dose to the nearest affected resident, from even the most severe plausible threat scenario ... would likely be below 5 rem. In many scenarios, the hypothetical dose to an individual in the affected population could be substantially less than 5 rem, or none at all," the report states.

The average American is exposed to about 360 millirems of radiation each year from natural and man-made sources, according to the NRC. For example, a chest X-ray would expose an individual to about 15 millirems of radiation.

A nuclear plant worker's annual safe exposure limit is 5 rem, which is the same as 5,000 millirems.

"Even if it happened right across the street, you would not exceed 5 rems of exposure," Sheehan said. Overall, the threat is considered minimal, he said.

It's an assessment that Mary Lambert of Duxbury-based Pilgrim Watch laughed at yesterday. "The obvious issue is that the NRC doesn't want to listen to reality."

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Lambert's group want NRC officials to consider terror threats — especially in light of the 9/11 attacks — in deciding whether to renew Entergy's license to operate Pilgrim for 20 additional years.

"Diablo Canyon broadly shows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can do an (environmental) analysis regarding terrorist threat, which we have asked for," a spokeswoman for Coakley said.

But the two plants are different because officials at Diablo Canyon are requesting a dry cask storage facility, while Pilgrim stores its spent fuel in a pool on site, the spokeswoman said. Coakley has also asked the NRC to consider other risks, such as a natural disaster, she said.

Dry storage casks like the one proposed in California are reinforced concrete vaults built to withstand a nuclear accident. At Pilgrim, the spent fuel rods — from 35 years of operation — are kept in a pool that has a steel reinforced liner and that is within a building with steel reinforced concrete walls, Sheehan said. "Both methods are considered safe."

There is no centralized facility in which to dispose of spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in the United States.

A suit brought by Coakley, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, is on hold at the attorney general's request. She is waiting until the NRC acts on her petition to make security part of the licensing process before she decides whether to continue with the court action.

That type of security isn't part of the licensing process because it requires constant oversight, Sheehan said. New measures were put in place after the 9/11 attacks, he said.

Meanwhile, Entergy has asked for summary disposition from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of several outstanding issues posed by Pilgrim Watch, which are still before the board evaluating the license extension, Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino said. "We found some of (Pilgrim Watch's) demands were unreasonable and were not a serious attempt to form a resolution."

Pilgrim Watch's issues go beyond the two main issues that are part of the license extension process — environmental impact and the integrity of the plant's parts and structures, he said.

The agency granted Pilgrim Watch an extension to June 29 to respond to Entergy's summary judgment request because the watchdog group's pro bono attorney has moved to Africa.

"David's gotten a little smaller and Goliath's gotten bigger," Lambert said.

George Brennan can be reached at gbrennan@capecodonline.com.

Mother's Day Sunday Morning Document Sharing

The Choice Is Ours Only If We As A Community Unite For The Cause To Close Down Indian Point.

First, to all the Mothers out there, a Warm and Happy Mother's Day Wish to you. For those fortunate enough to have Mothers, enjoy the day with the most important woman in your life, your Mom. (Don't forget Grandma!) For those like my wife and I, who's Mom have passed...do your best to enjoy today, as our Mom's would have wanted it that way.

On to matters of Indian Point. If you want to defeat the enemy (license renewal application) you have to know the enemy, have to dig to find the dirt on them, and on their licensed reactors. As much as the NRC and the industry would like to pretend otherwise, problems, design flaws and aging issues in the history do not change,and the issues that existed then, still exist today. What changed today, is the regulatory environment...the NRC is no longer conservative where our health and safety is concerned, but instead has dampened down and weakened our rights to protect ourselves by diminishing our rights in the process, and making many of the documents THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO READ disappear.

However, if you dig, like an archaeologist uncovering and ancient tomb, everything is there. Indian Point, and all 104 of the aged and brittling reactors in America are not safe, and try as they might to state otherwise, the NRC,DOE,NEI and the entire nuclear industry know that and accident at one if not more than one of these ancient relics is not a question of if, but when. My gift to your Mothers, my gift to all the Mother's children of this area today is to bring some of those documents out from the catacombs so that you have the ability to gain the knowledge contained therein...if you are too busy to begin educating yourselves, to apathetic to join the fight to close down the Indian Point reactors, then it could be your Mom's and your own children's blood that is on your hands.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/5720088-bv3Eiz/native/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/116571-hvrpSO/webviewable/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10106547-4yZV2M/webviewable/

Evacuation Study (EPA-1987)
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10106547-4yZV2M/webviewable/

Effects on Ground Water From Nuclear Incident (study)
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10114729-BttYsN/webviewable/

Evacuation
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10165486-qa4x3K/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10158833-D5rUQj/

DOE Fusion Safety Handbook
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/7275-ZL623V/webviewable/

Cost Benefit of AP1000
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/7275-ZL623V/webviewable/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/87312-iUckzW/webviewable/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/291007-7XzROO/webviewable/

These Next two are really good;
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/234706-0M8FhH/webviewable/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/231340-j8IQA6/webviewable/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/145540-RXqKWR/webviewable/

Clad Failure
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/539845-EuiDju/webviewable/

Legal opinion on use of risk assessment
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/474831-VbUoFR/webviewable/

Explains Evacuation Plan Requirements
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/464373-wp5Y24/webviewable/

In phase 2, mid-loop operation was selected as the plant configuration to be analyzed based on the results of the phase 1 study. The objective of the phase 2 study is to perform a detailed analysis of the potential accident scenarios that may occur during mid-loop operation, and compare the results with those of NUREG-1150.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10171925-CysxDC/native/

Health Effects Analysis From Nuclear Incident
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10189279-hCaabh/native/

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10115122-bghwue/webviewable/

Selling the PUBLIC
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10109100-jGeWQl/webviewable/

Reactor Computer Software
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10108329-oSHOxS/native/

Severe Accident Management
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10187578-tSYJaQ/native/

Understanding Industry High Risk Evaluation Software
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10106403-XvH2yD/webviewable/

Fuel Melt
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10187144-3hyPHf/native/

A Medical Teams Story
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10117645-4nvHOA/webviewable/

Aging Issues Volume3
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/234705-90Y0V0/webviewable/

Aging Lessons Learned
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/434419-ERu1lD/webviewable/

Aging Volume 2
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/446364-tVzyec/webviewable/

This paper discusses a series of tests performed at the Institute of Fluid Flow Machines in Kaiserslautern, Germany. The tests were designed to investigate the effect of replacing one of the steam turbines in a power plant. The new turbine required more cooling water flow through the condenser, which called for new cooling water pumps. The model tests showed that reliable, long-term service would be impossible without modifying the equipment. The test model was built to use Froude's law to investigate the effects of the changes.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10171813-jWDQYu/native/

Aging-Heat Reactors
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10163820-iB7o9i/native/

Some Good Stuff On Pipes
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10188092-gZYWT6/native/

Leak Before Break
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/468617-96toEH/webviewable/

Managing Age
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10121478-fe1Nl1/native/

Oldie But Goodie-Failure Data Handbook
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/4161614-r2W5JR/

Pump Degradation
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/95485-8rATZE/webviewable/

Precursors To Severe Core Damage
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/140428-xc1WjZ/webviewable/

Important Petition For Rulemaking Accepting Co-Signers

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

To: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request For Action

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

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

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

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

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

Justifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully Submitted,


Petitioners/Interveners

Sherwood Martinelli
351 Dyckman
Peekskill, New York 10566

Susan Shapiro
21 Perlman Drive
Spring Valley, NY 10977

Remy Chevalier
25 Newtown Turnpike

Weston, CT 06883

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

Barbara Jacobs
76 Dimond Ave.
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567

Judy Allen
24 Seifert Lane
Putnam Valley, NY 10579

Sally Shaw
100 River Rd.
Gill, MA 01354
acer8sac@comcast.net

Maureen Ritter
46 Campbell Ave
Suffern, NY 10901

Dorice Madronero
Regis Ct.
Suffern, NY 10901

Pamela Slater
7 Kensington Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583

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

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

Lucillen Weinstat
8 Halfmoon Rd.
Beacon, NY 12508

CrotonCIP
PO Box 134
Croton on Hudson, NY

Individuals CrotonCIP Steer
signed on as individuals are:

Mary Cronin
Christine Puente
Batya Halpern

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

Ann Harbeson
5 Valley Trail
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

Mary Cronin
201 Cleveland Drive
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

Christine Puente
31 Battery Place
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520

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

Michel Lee
265 Madison Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583

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

Mark Jacobs
46 Highland Drive
Garrison, NY 10524

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

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

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

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

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

Allegra Dengler
60 Judson Avenue
Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

Wake Up To The Truths Revealed In Nuclear Past-Reactors are DEATH MACHINES, and NRC Endorses Said Holocaust

Nuclear Power is not, and has NEVER been safe...problem is, too many Americans have chosen to ignore the past, or are too young to remember it, and are buying into the propaganda of green nuclear energy.

Dr. John William Gofman, one of the foremost expert on nuclear energy, and the nuclear industry testified in the Federal Court in Nashville, Tenn back in 1978...his testimony was/is riveting, and nothing has changed in the almost 30 years since his testimony. Let's look at a couple of the damning statements found in the court transcripts.

Question: Can leukemia or cancer be specifically identified as caused by ionizing radiation?

Answer: There is no reasonable doubt in my mind or to my knowledge from the scientific literature on the part of anyone that radiation is A CAUSE OF LEUKEMIA OR CANCER.

If you read the entire transcript, it goes on to state, that the rate of leukemia deaths from the continued use of nuclear reactors could be as many as 100 deaths a day! In short, the NRC, the DOE are condoning/allowing the nuclear industry to KILL 36,500 of us EACH AND EVERY YEAR in the name of the nuclear industry.

Question: Could you tell us what ALARA, A-L-A-R-A, refers to ?

Answer: ALARA, A-L-A-R-A means as low as reasonably achievable. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY OR FREEDOM FROM CANCER AND GENERIC INJURY. It just means that for the amount of money you are WILLING to spend, try to do what you can to keep people from getting too much of a dose and hence too many cancers and leukemias and generic injuries.

Question: Does ALARA essentially PLAN IN HUMAN DEATHS?

Answer: It PERMITS deaths.

Question: Permits human deaths?

Answer: Yes, because ALARA does not say-see, the one way you could avoid deaths from the nuclear fuel cycle is to have ZERO releases. ALARA says keep the releases as low as you can reasonably achieve with the economics that you WANT TO SPEND ON IT and the equipment you have available and so forth.

So it is a planned emission of radioactivity and that in effect means PLANNED DEATH.

Curious here, how many of Green Nuclear Butterfly's readers are fine with PLANNED DEATH in the name of Nuclear Industry profits? We know there are releases...look at Pilgrim, look at Vermont Yankee, look at Indian Point....every one of these Entergy nuclear time bombs is LEAKING radioactive contaminants, everyone of these reactors IS KILLING PEOPLE...and that is OK with the NRC as long as those deaths fit within acceptable criteria of ALARA! Curious here...if your wife, sister, daughter is dying of breast cancer caused by Indian Point, is that OK with you? If your child is dying of Leukemia, is that FINE BY YOU....do you really find ALARA acceptable? Do you really find risk/cost analysis acceptable when profits come ahead of someone/any one's life? It's fine as long as it's not one of YOUR RELATIVES?

Did you know a child born in the United States today has a ONE IN THREE chance of dying of cancer? Did you know that the NRC has abandoned their claims that nuclear does not cause cancer, and instead gone to a fall back position that ONE DAY A CURE WILL BE FOUND FOR CANCER!

Indian Point is leaking Strontium 90 and Tritium into the Hudson River Watershed area, and effluent from their stacks are routinely releasing (ALARA) what the NRC refers to as acceptable amounts of other radioacive contaminants into OUR AIR, onto our soil. The Jordan Memorandum of 1977 lead to what was billed as the Murder Trail of the Century in Federal Case 78-3371. It is 2007, 30 years later, and the Nuclear Industry is killing more of us each and every day, Entergy's brittled and aging fleet of rusting, delapidated nuclear reactors are releasing more and more radioactive particulates into the environment with each passing down, and with these increasing releases, our DEATH TOLL rise!

The time has come for a NEW MURDER TRIAL OF THE CENTURY.

Oyster Creek...Another Community Being Raped

It Will TAKE REVOLT To Shut Down Dangerous Reactors!

WAKE UP AMERICA...it's not just Indian Point sitting on the banks of the Hudson just up river from New York city that is a MAJOR ACCIDENT waiting to happen. Vermont Yankee is not the only plant with far too many problems. Let's not forget about Pilgrim, or Diablo out in California either, but it is more than just that...the NRC is playing with OUR LIVES. Perhaps for some of you, that is fine...problem is, it is NOT FINE for those of us living within the circle of death around 103 aging reactors, it is NOT FINE for the folks of Nevada where the DOE/NRC and nuclear industry dip chits want to dump high level wastes, less than and hour from a major tourist MECCA.

We in the host communities are being sold to SATAN, and it is time that we join together and speak a NATIONAL VOICE. Congressman John Hall and Senator Hillary Clinton need to introduce NATIONAL LEGISLATION that would force a Independent Safety and Security Assessment of every nuclear plant in America. Local governments need to use our police departments, use our National Guard troops to shut down these facilities, and if necessary, BY FORCE. When dealing with human lives, when dealing with PUBLIC SAFETY, the NRC has no business rubber stamping the unsafe license renewals of 103 again reactors...Ignore THIS WARNING, and you are setting your community up to be an American Holocaust. It is time to do what must be done locally to close these plants...if that means FORCE ON FORCE, then so be it...Let George Bush be remembered as the president that killed innocent civilians in the name of the failing American Nuclear Industry.

Westchester County is not OWNED BY ENTERGY, Lacey is not owned by Exelon, and our communities ARE NOT OWNED by the NRC, or by the federal government...NO MEANS NO, and if it takes local government employing FORCE to shut down these aging relics, then the time has come to order law enforcement to begin it's preparations.

NRC disregarding signs of trouble at Oyster Creek
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/18/07
BY JANET TAURO

Let's do some role-playing.

You are a federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission member. You are charged with overseeing safety at the country's nuclear reactors — the most costly, dirtiest and "most dangerous technology available for boiling water."

You must decide whether the nation's oldest reactor situated in the middle of a densely populated region can chug along until its 60th birthday without jeopardizing the lives of 630,000 people living nearby.

You have a list of problems that don't bode well for the plant, which is owned by a powerful company, Exelon:

A document written by an Exelon engineer surfaces cautioning that the support floor to the elevated pool, already packed with 450 tons of nuclear waste, was not built to design and not adequately attached to the walls.

State officials legally challenge your agency to assess the plant's vulnerability to terrorist attack — specifically that the radioactive waste is sitting in pools 70 feet above ground and protected only by a metal roof. That challenge is supported when the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to interfere with an appeals ruling mandating evaluation of terrorist risk before license renewal.

The commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection states her preference for installation of cooling towers to stop the killing of billions of marine life, including endangered species. Soon after, the federal Environmental Protection Agency rules that nuclear plants install cooling towers to limit environmental damage.

The drywell, the steel liner shielding the public from radiation, which even Exelon estimated to be just .06 inches away from failing safety code, has now rusted at least another .02 inches.

A national laboratory study shows there is a significant chance the drywell is already below safety code.

An internal memorandum from a plant employee shows that Exelon knows the way it analyzes the drywell's structural strength is fundamentally flawed.

A glass soda bottle is found embedded in the drywell floor, and a DEP official wonders what other "voids" might be exasperating corrosion in a letter posted on an NRC Web site.

An e-mail exchange between Exelon executives stating that the equipment used to take measurements of the drywell didn't perform worth "———" becomes public.

Now what do you do with this list? Cease operations until a plan of action can be drawn for safety and security? Order Exelon to empty the fuel pool and secure contents in concrete cask storage? Assess the effects of an aircraft attack? Enforce the EPA order to install cooling towers? Demand immediate state-of-the-art modeling to determine the actual thickness of the drywell? Find out what other garbage is embedded in the drywell floor? Find out more about the disturbing e-mail exchange?

If you chose any of the above answers, you're wrong.

In this very real scenario, the NRC has instead apparently put Exelon on the fast track to the relicensing finish line and given preliminary approval to the safety review for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey.

Don't be surprised. A few months ago, the NRC disregarded the fact that Exelon had used 35-year-old data to assess the plant's environmental impact on Barnegat Bay. If the license is renewed, Ocean County will have the dubious distinction of being the nation's test case for whether a nuclear plant with an obsolete design can operate safely many years beyond its retirement date without hurting anyone. That's a Guinness record we could live without.

And that is why our coalition, Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek, with expert representation by our attorney, Richard Webster of the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, is by no means finished with our fight.

Our legal proceedings, which are ongoing, already have forced a more careful monitoring and analysis of the structural integrity of the drywell.

The DEP, with approval from Gov. Corzine, will reportedly hire an independent expert to analyze the drywell's structural integrity.

That expert should also take a close look at the spent fuel pool and its floor support, of which Exelon's own engineer wrote, "If the rebar (a metal fastener) is really corroding as projected, I suspect our design analysis of the floor support is not valid today, let alone for a 20-year life extension."

The governor has stated that if the plant is not safe to operate, it shouldn't operate. We respectfully draw the governor's attention to the list provided here. If the roles were reversed and he were an NRC commissioner charged with safeguarding the lives of hundreds of thousands, what would he do?

Janet Tauro, Brick, is a member of Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek, a coalition of six citizen and environmental groups.

Open Letter To Greenpeace...Three DAYS TO SIGN ON.

Curious...Did you know with all the MONEY we send Greenpeace, they only have ONE PERSON in Washington to deal with Nuclear ISSUES for the ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT? WHERE ARE YOU GREENPEACE?

To remind everyone, am posting our OPEN LETTER to Greenpeace below. Time to sign on is running out here. Make sure to get your organization of name on this important letter THIS WEEK before it is mailed off.

Below is an open letter to the Executive Director of Greenpeace. Support this just and noble cause by signing on to the positions in the letter by leaving a comment on this post. If you would like your own elected officials CCed a copy of this letter, please let us know, and they will be added to the CC list. You can also have a more formalized response from your own organization included with this letter by emailing roycepenstinger@aol.com The deadline for signing on to this open letter is January 31st, 2007.

John Passacantando
Executive Director
Greenpeace
702 H Street, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20001

Dear John:

With all due respect to yourself, and to the work of Greenpeace, we are writing this open letter to you, to ask the question, "Where is Greenpeace in the fight to stop the wrongful relicensing of antiquated and aging nuclear facilities?" As longtime clean energy advocates, we ask this question because as a nation, America is but a handful of reactors away from the proverbial tipping point of pursuing the dangerous path being laid out by the DOE's Nuclear 2010/GNEP.

For some time now, the battle cry of the environmental movement, of Greenpeace, has been to think globally but act locally. Unfortunately, at this stage, this fight cannot be won locally. The fight to stop the relicensing of dangerous reactors such as Entergy's Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, and reactors 2 and 3 at the Indian Point site will require national involvement in a big way from Greenpeace, from the National Wildlife Federation, even the Sierra Club. There is no more, cannot be any more backing up and waiting for a better time to make our stand...the time is now, the fight will be won or lost during this the 110th Congress...the nuclear industry knows it, and one would assume that Greenpeace knows it. Sadly, other than token efforts and position papers, Greenpeace as the marquee player and pace setter within the Green movement seems to be largely absent from the battle as one local host community after another is mowed down by the NRC. That, however, doesn’t have to be the case.

I, and members of my community, would like to work in concert with Greenpeace before it is too late. With this in mind, we would like to know what Greenpeace is doing to push Congress to pass a bill demanding a full and complete safety and security assessment of every reactor in the United States. Is Greenpeace openly and publicly opposing the nuclear industry's wrong sighted plan known as "Nuclear Power 2010" that would help create a renaissance of the nuclear industry, and the sighting of as many as 400 fuzzy science reactors world wide with as many as 50 of them sited and built here in America? Where is Greenpeace in confronting Congressmen/women and Senators who pretend to be on our side, yet refuse to introduce safety and security assessment laws for the entire nuclear industry?

The time of sitting on the sidelines because the win is not assured has to end, and the national and international organizations led by Greenpeace need to step forward, and lead the fight, as the line has been drawn in the sand, and we fight now, or fold up our tents and go home. Small grassroots organizations and individuals such as myself and my, "Green Nuclear Butterfly" cannot win this fight locally; we are but cannon fodder without your help in this fight.

We must work as one team and go to Congress to demand that a national bill be passed in this 110th Congress that accomplishes the following: a) order a security and safety assessment (identical to the one done for Maine Yankee) at every nuclear reactor in the United States; b) implement a moratorium on all NRC relicensing activities and efforts until such time as every assessment has been completed; c) establish a ‘Blue Ribbon Committee’ that includes a member of a grassroots organization from every reactor host community in America to review the information and data from said assessments, and d) submit for consideration to the Congress a ‘Nuclear Industry Blue Ribbon Commission Report’ complete with recommendations for said Congress to adopt into law.

The moratorium would remain in full effect until such time as every recommendation of this commission was enacted into law. In this fashion, we have the national debate on Nuclear Reactors with all the cards honestly laid out on the table. As a part of this process, there should be informational meetings, and at least one public hearing for the purpose of taking citizen testimony in every community hosting a nuclear reactor, and or other facility related to or producing source materials for these reactors.

I, and the undersigned organizations, respectfully request a response from Greenpeace on these matters as quickly as possible. We need leadership and commitment from Greenpeace while we still have a chance to win this war.


Respectfully,


Green Nuclear Butterfly

CO-Signers Of Note

Michel Lee, Esq.
Chairman
Council on Intelligent Energy
& Conservation Policy
White Plains, New York 10602

Mitzi Bowman, Coordinator
Don't Waste Connecticut
Member of Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone
www.mothballmillstone.org
(203)389-2067
upthesun@cshore.com

Sherwood Martinelli, Peekskill, NY
roycepenstinger@aol.com

Remy G. Chevalier
www.rockthereactors.com

Evan Mulholland, South Royalton, Vt.
evanmulholland@yahoo.com

Gary Sachs, Brattleboro, Vt.

Keith Harmon Snow
413-626-3800
www.allthingspass.com

Sally Shaw
Gill, Massachusetts

Claire Chang
Citizens Awareness Network
www.nukebusters.org

Bryan Shaw
Westminster West Vermont.

RJ Haskins
Brattleboro Vermont

Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes
P.O. Box 331
Monroe, MI 48161
Michael J. Keegan

Don't Waste Michigan
6677 Summerview
Holland, MI 49424
Alice Hirt

Citizens' Resistance at Fermi Two
P.O. Box 463
Monroe, MI 48161
Keith Gunter

Wendy Brawer
New York, NY

George Crocker
North American Water Office
Lake Elmo, MN

Bruce Meland
Electrifying Times
Bend, OR

Matthew Shapiro
Citizens Environmental Coalition
Albany, NY

John Schaeffer
Real Goods
Hopland, CA

Harvey Wasserman
Author of Solartopia

Patty de Llosa
Author of The Practice of Presence

Connie Hogarth
Center for Social Action

Doug Moss
Publisher
E The Environmental Magazine

Scott Sklar
The Stella Group, Ltd.

David Bedell
Secretary
Fairfield County CT Green Party

Richard Duffee
CT Representative
US Green Party International Committee

Bruce K. Gagnon
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power

Paul H. Gavin, PhD, retired
pgavin@adelphia.net

Eleanor I.Gavin, RN, Retired
elliegavin@adelphia.net

CC List

Congressman John Hall
Congressman Maurice Hinchey
Congresswoman Nita Lowey
Governor Eliot Spitzer

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!

We Can Castrate The Pro Nuclear Tiger!

Folks, the below article was just sent to the Green Nuclear Butterfly, and it could be of great value to our cause...we have a chance to Castrate the Pro Nuclear Tiger by DEFUNDING the entire Nuclear 2010/GNEP program. Edward McGaffigan Jr. of the NRC has stated any applications that come in this year would have to be put on hold, as the Congress has not set forth a budget yet....HELLO! He stated that the Nuclear Renaissance is currently in nuetral, and that all the industry's HARD WORK could be undone!

Right now, various parts of our government are operating on a continuing resolution. If you go look at the bill that stalled, over a QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS was EARMARKED for Pro Nuclear work at the NRC, DOE and specifically through the GNEP iniative. If we can lobby Congress hard enough, if we can bring Greenpeace, NIRS and others into this war, we can literally Castrate the Nuclear Industry's Pro Nuke Tiger, leave them licking their proverbial wounds. Imagine taking that money earmarked for PRO NUKE, and instead putting it into TRUE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY options such as wind and solar.

Nuclear renaissance in neutral, NRC member says
Matthew L. Wald
New York Times News Service
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/16527780.htm

WASHINGTON - The senior member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned Monday that the failure of Congress to pass a detailed budget for the current fiscal year could damage the nuclear renaissance that the government tried so hard to encourage with the energy bill of 2005.

No one has applied for permission to build a power reactor since the 1970s. But with the incentives offered by the federal government in 2005, utilities are considering building about 20 reactors, and several of them are expected to apply for authorization this year. NOT IF WE CONVINCE CONGRESS TO UNFUND THEM.

The commission member, Edward McGaffigan Jr., said that if the commission received applications this year, "we basically are going to have to put them on the shelf, because we're not going to have the folks to work on the applications until well into calendar year 2008."

The Republican-controlled Congress passed only two of the 11 spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2006, those covering the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department. The rest of the government has been operating under a "continuing resolution," a stopgap measure that finances most agencies at the previous year' levels. Democrats say they plan to extend that resolution through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

According to the nuclear commission, under a continuing resolution its budget would be lower by $95 million, or about 12 percent, compared with the level approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees but never by the full Congress. Most of the commission's budget comes from fees paid by companies licensed to use radioactive material. The agency has been arguing on Capitol Hill that giving it the amount already approved by the Appropriations Committees would require only $13 million of general tax revenues. DOE's budget could be negatively impacted by three times this much...there is almost half a billion dollars that could be redirected to BETTER OPTIONS.

McGaffigan said that if the commission could not process applications, some companies wanting to build would decide to wait. But he said that "some, seeing the instability, may disappear" and build coal plants instead.

Earlier this month, McGaffigan told the White House he had metastatic melanoma and that he would serve only until a successor could be confirmed. He spoke Monday at a meeting with reporters organized by Platts, an energy information company.

McGaffigan also said that the Energy Department should begin looking for alternatives to Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, for disposing of nuclear waste from plants around the country, including Diablo Canyon near Avila Beach.

When he came to the commission in 1996, he said, the opening of the repository was said to be 14 years away; now it is probably 20 years away.

"There's just tremendous uncertainty," he said, "and each year that passes, we're not going to get any closer to Yucca under the current circumstances." He said the government should look for a site where there was local cooperation.

Joining Green Peace...How About Them Joining Us As Well?

Green Nuclear Butterfly Says It is Time For Greenpeace To Rejoin Us Here In The Grassroots, Help US In Our Time Of Need As We Try To Stop The Wrongful Relicensing Of Aging Reactors Across America.

We here at the Green Nuclear Butterfly are collecting Co-Signers on an open letter to the Executive Director of Greenpeace, asking them WHERE IS GREENPEACE. So far, in the fight to stop relicensing of aging reactors, the grassroots environmental movement is losing the war 48-0. What we are asking for from Greenpeace (an other national groups as well, such as Sierra Club, National Wildlife, even Riverkeeper) is simple and straight forward. We want a Federal Law passed that would accomplish three things.

1. Mandate an Independent (not NRC involvement) Safety and Security Assessment of every nuclear facility in America...if a facility is a part of the fuel cycle, they would be a part of this mandate.

2. Mandate a moratorium on all relicensing and/or licensing actions until such time as the NRC, DOE and the nuclear industry come up with proven, workable long term storage of their waste streams.

3. Form a Blue Ribbon Nuclear Industry Commission to study nuclear, and recommend to Congress the terms and conditions of nuclear continuing as a part of America's energy portfolio. Said Commission must include a member of a grassroots organization (with no ties to industry or government) from each nuclear facility in America.

This issue needs to be taken National. We are asking for Greenpeace's help in doing this. Perhaps our first chance to have dialogue with Greenpeace will occur tomorrow, January 25th. John Coequyt (Energy Campaigner) and Jim Riccio (Nuclear Point Person) for Greenpeace will be conducting a live chat beginning at 12:30. We need to have our people at this important chat, need to let them know that it is there time to STAND WITH US, let them know that the same old rhetoric will not work. Stopping the wrongful relicensing of 103 aging reactors will take more than a letter, phone and fax campaign. It will take Greenpeace putting as much energy into the NUCLEAR ISSUE as they are now putting into their Save The Oceans campaign. It is the world's future at stake here, and we are hoping to have a sit down meeting with the Executive Director of Greenpeace in the very near future to make out a plan.

The Email From Greenpeace About the Online Meeting:

President Bush has let the issue of global warming simmer on the back burner of his presidency for 6 years. The scientific community and the rest of the world has heard the oven timer go off, but last night, President Bush continued to ignore the alarm as he served up a plateful of tepid solutions to a worldwide audience.

While the chef may finally have acknowledged the brewing problem, he failed to rescue the planet from the oven. His so-called solutions of "clean" coal and nuclear energy are a recipe for disaster. Well, we're serving up a fresh new alternative to global warming with real solutions that don't rely on nuclear energy or coal. Our plan would cut global CO2 emissions in the U.S. by almost 75% within the next 43 years. In fact, renewable energy and greater energy efficiency can deliver half of the world's energy needs by 2050.

The President has failed to lead this country, or the world, on the issue of global warming. It's up to Congress to pull us out of the global warming fire, and time is running out. TAKE ACTION Tell Congress to turn the oven off NOW.

It's time to start an energy revolution, NOW. We've come up with effective solutions, but we need YOUR help to get them implemented.

Sincerely,

John Coequyt
Energy Campaigner

p.s. If you want to learn more about our blueprint for solving global warming, join me and Nuclear Campaigner Jim Riccio for a live chat tomorrow afternoon at 12:30 pm EST and PST.

Relicensing Really A Two For One NRC Scam On Host Communities

The Nuclear Industry Wants to Steal The GREEN MANTLE, and Are Willing To Corrupt The Constitution TO DO IT, and The NRC and DOE Are GLADLY ON BOARD For The Ride.

If you begin researching the DOE, NRC, Idaho National Labs, nuclear industry plan for their perverted vision of a United States Nuclear Renaissance as found in the Nuclear 2010/GNEP road map, there are three MAJOR Mile markers. 2010 is the year that the DOE will push forward a singular Reactor Plan to the NRC that can be MASS PRODUCED. The second major point on the road is 2030...it is here, that the NRC expects to see the first in this new fleet of reactors finally increasing their current market share in the United States Energy Market. There is a catch...to reach this mile stone, it is imperative that all 103 currently operating commercial remain open and fully operational at PEAK CAPACITY.

To reach this 2030 goal, there is only one road that could and can be traveled. Streamline and corrupt the re licensing application process in such a fashion as to allow the NRC to get away with Rubber Stamping the applications, thus FORCING host communities to continue playing hosts to a brittling, aging, decaying group of 103 reactors...all in the name of keeping the Nuclear Industry alive. Problem is, the reactors are held together with 1,000's of welds and patches and reactor core crack, steam pipes burst, and domes begin to crack in preparation for potential cave ins. Environmental issues like proven degradation of our water ways are dismissed as minimal when compared to the benefits being received by the greater society (Corporate Executives and shareholders). Leaking spent fuel rod pools, a sure sign of structural instability are removed from the process under the guise they are NOT THE REACTORS...uhhh...are they NOT COVERED UNDER THE SAME LICENSE?

This national rape of local communities, the abomination of their environment, the game of Russian Roulette with their health is bad enough, but sadly, that is not enough for the DOE, NRC, the nuclear industry, and George W. Bush to accomplish their horrid crimes against humanity in trying to paint Nuclear as GREEN, clean, safe and secure. No, they need another 20 years, need to keep America's fleet of antiquated reactors running THROUGH 2050 when they are hoping they can have enough new reactors coming online to hold the line, and the profits of the industry. The third LEG of this axis of evil known as GNEP. As NRC rubber stamps the entire round of current applications, they have already started paving the wave for every single reactor to re license itself A SECOND TIME, have already started seeding the public with their demon spawn lies that these Nuclear Holocaust in waiting reactors are perfectly capable of remaining in service for not 40, not 60 BUT EIGHTY YEARS!

Every citizen in America who lives within the shadows of these death towers needs to read Kathryn Casa's article, "Industry: Reactors Should Run for 80 Years". It seems, that the NRC plans to have their licensees enter a proverbial REVOLVING DOOR...as soon as all of them have received their first renewal, while the host communities are still devastated and shell shocked at the wrongful first re licensing, the NRC is going to kick these communities while they are down by starting an immediate SECOND ROUND OF RE LICENSING that will allow they facilities to operate for a total of 40 years BEYOND THEIR ORIGINAL LICENSES.

This is just one more in a long list of reasons why the Green Nuclear Butterfly is calling for a nationwide FEDERAL LAW to conduct a safety and security assessment of EVERY NUCLEAR FACILITY in America (including fuel processing/reprocessing plants), a law that would declare a moratorium on all re licensing activities, and preclude the granting of any new reactor licenses until the industry begins to put a serious dent in their every growing pile of NUCLEAR WASTES.

Energy Issues-Bush Claim That Nuclear is Safe and Clean

Imagine An NRC That CLOSED Unsafe, Aging Nuclear Reactors, Instead of Rubber Stamping Their Relicensing

The wrap up and dissection of George Bush's State of The Union Speech will now go on for hours as every little nuance is put under the microscope. Green Nuclear Butterfly is specifically concerned with Nuclear Industry, and energy issues here in America, and around the world. In his speech tonight, Bush spoke rather briefly on Energy, much of his words nothing more than reruns as he again called on conservation, drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, and his seeming favorite, split grass.

First thing that concerned me, was the tactical way he attempted to bring America with him in embracing the 2010 challenge...in short, cut our fossil fuel use 20 percent in the next ten years. It was sly...by embracing this slogan, he gets us by proxy to embrace the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative. Some might doubt this, but it is true, a trick advertisers have used time and again in selling us on a new concept or product. In short, he and his administration are doing some BRANDING WORK. You brand 2010 as good, and by default he moves the GREEN NUCLEAR ball down the field.

He basically ended his energy section of the speech with the claim that Nuclear is clean and safe...it is NEITHER. First, the time has come for Congress to pass a law that requires a safety and security assessments of every nuclear facility in the United States of America...this is a rallying cry, and one of the primary goals of the Green Nuclear Butterfly. Secondly, America needs a COMPLETE moratorium on all nuclear advancements, on any future reactors until such time as our government and the Nuclear Industry can prove conclusively that they can deal with, and safely store radioactive waste streams for a period of no less than 100,000 years. Until those involved with nuclear can deal with their waste streams in a honest, proven, safe, and secure fashion, the industry should be dead in its tracks, and Congress owes it to every American community now hosting a nuclear facility, and to those communities who could be forced to host a future nuclear facility to declare a moratorium until these waste streams are dealt with, and removed from REACTOR SITES in totality.