Indian Point Leaks Too Small For Harm...So, A Gun Is Just A Hunk of Metal Till You Pull Trigger.

In a news article, we are being told/chastised by Indian Point and their parents, Entergy and the NRC that the tritium leaks at the plant are too small to cause harm. Small leaks have this habit of becoming LARGE LEAKS, especially when the neanderthals from Entergy are incapable and/or unwilling to FIND AND REPAIR them. Their assurances ring false, and the analogy in the title of this article rings true...Why not get Steets too point a gun at your face, and state, "don't worry, it's just a hunk of metal unless I pull the trigger."

If, as Entergy, NRC and the NEI would have us believe, nuclear reactors are ever so safe, then why is every other agency of our Federal Government spending billions of dollars preparing for the aftermath of a significant nuclear incident, and/or a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor site. The two realities do not mesh, and we are being lied to...you can decide which version of the truth is real.

Indian Point report: Radioactive leaks too small for harm

By BRUCE GOLDING
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: May 19, 2007)
BUCHANAN - Radioactive contamination leaking from the Indian Point nuclear power plants into the Hudson River has not significantly increased radiation exposure to the public, according to a new report from the plants' owner.

The federally mandated annual report found small amounts of dangerous radioactive materials in the groundwater path leading to the river.

Radioactive contamination was discovered leaking underground from Indian Point in 2005 and last month was found in the plants' sewage. Federal officials have said the leaks were being addressed and posed no threat to the public.

The April 25 report from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the company that owns and operates the plants, estimates that the maximum potential radiation dose from the leaks is a tiny fraction of the federal 3-millirem limit for annual total-body exposure to an adult through liquids.

Federal authorities estimate that a typical American is exposed to 360 millirem of radiation yearly.

Read rest of article here.

Entergy's Unmitigated Gall! They Claim Partial Credit in GEIS For Indian Point License Renewal For Saving America Bald Eagle

Can see the headline in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal now. Entergy and the nuclear industry have saved the American Bald Eagle from extinction. I spent yesterday going through the laborious task of reading the Indian Point Environmental Study attached to their Application for License Renewal. It was/is no surprise they claim no significant impacts would occur as a result of relicensing. Easy to do when you don't have to address leaks, spent fuel, a terrorist attack, or a non working Evacuation Plan.

However, even I was surprised at the unmitigated GALL of Entergy when I came across a passage in their report on endangered species. They posture for the readers, that one possible reason for the Bald Eagles come back, is the OPEN SPACE provide in this area because of Indian Points nuclear reactors. If we did not know it before, it is official now...Entergy has no shame.

Meanwhile, some of us need to file formal complaints with certain agencies regarding Indian Points killing of Short Sturgeons that are brutally sucked into the killing machines that are their water intake system. While we are at it, it is pointed out that Entergy claims not to have seen any other endangered species on their land, but nor do they admit to ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THEM.

A**Holes Penn & Teller Even Bigger A**Holes Than Previously Thought!

PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!: NUKES, HYBRIDS & LESBIANS

Season 5, Episode 9: Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/episodes.do

Penn and Teller take on nuclear power, hybrid cars, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and lesbians on a blind date, all within the same episode. We discover the bullshit behind keeping nuclear power down, the waste left behind by hybrid cars and the garbage clouding decisions to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Plus, two lesbians on a blind date road trip put their newfound relationship and a hybrid car to the test.

Watch preview trailer:
http://www.sho.com/site/video/player.do?video=/134/2007/134_s5_nukes2&seriesid=134

SCHEDULE: Click on the "remind me" link below if you would like an email reminder to watch. All times ET/PT.

Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians 05/18/07 10:30 PM Showtime
Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians 05/19/07 12:35 AM Showtime
Nukes, Hybrids and Lesbians 05/21/07 12:00 AM Showtime

Clips from show... see how Penn & Teller use two lesbians to dump on the Prius and hype nukes!

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=maulrat1967
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aHfVlA-ySuI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3p7ZGcrFrq0

Let Penn & Teller know what you think!
pressrequests@pennandteller.com

Read More about Penn and Teller's ridiculous reporting!
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2004/09/09/24222.php

After watching this show, every lesbian in America is going to want to own their own Prius... I suspect Penn & Teller did this to bring attention to the issues, make tongues wag... they'll come out in a few days and say: "Got you, fooled you good!" And if they don't? Same result... They're so over the top with it... it's giving sane opposition to the relicensing of old decrepit nuclear power plants a shot in the arm.

On YouTube someone calling themselves Fluos wrote: "By early 2002, 7 billion US dollars had been spent on the project which has made Yucca Mountain the most studied piece of geology in the world. Total cost is expected to be between 50 and 100 billion dollars. The cost to continue storing nuclear waste at their respective plants though is significantly greater, estimated to be 200 to 400 billion dollars."

What a waste of billions... and think of all the wind "turbines" we could have erected for that kind of cash...

Nuclear Attack Chaos-This Article Needs Printed in New York Times

I've recieved some rude and threatening emails since starting GNB, most of them following my articles about what a significant nuclear event or terrorist attack at Indian Point would be like in the aftermath. The central theme of those attacks centered around the allegation that I was fear mongering...well, perhaps you should read this very frightening article from the San Francisco Chronicle...anyone living within 50 miles of Indian Points antiquated reactors should make this a must read article.

Contingencies for nuclear terrorist attack
Government working up plan to prevent chaos in wake of bombing of major city
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, May 11, 2007

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/11/MNG2OPP22R1.DTL

As concerns grow that terrorists might attack a major American city with a nuclear bomb, a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program that would include the building of bomb shelters, steps to prevent panicked evacuations and the possible suspension of some civil liberties.

Many experts say the likelihood of al Qaeda or some other terrorist group producing a working nuclear weapon with illicitly obtained weapons-grade fuel is not large, but such a strike would be far more lethal, frightening and disruptive than the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Not only could the numbers killed and wounded be far higher, but the explosion could, experts say, ignite widespread fires, shut down most transportation, halt much economic activity and cause a possible disintegration of government order.

The efforts to prepare a detailed blueprint for survival took a step forward last month when senior government and military officials and other experts, organized by a joint Stanford-Harvard program called the Preventive Defense Project, met behind closed doors in Washington for a day-long workshop.

The session, called "The Day After," was premised on the idea that efforts focusing on preventing such a strike were no longer enough, and that the prospect of a collapse of government order was so great if there were an attack that the country needed to begin preparing an emergency program.

One of the participants, retired Vice Adm. Roger Rufe, is a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security who is currently designing the government's nuclear attack response plan.

The organizers of the nonpartisan project, Stanford's William Perry, a secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, and Harvard's Ashton Carter, a senior Defense Department official during the Clinton years, assumed the detonation of a bomb similar in size to the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II.

Such a weapon, with a force of around 10 to 15 kilotons, is small compared with most Cold War-era warheads, but is roughly the yield of a relatively simple bomb. That would be considerably more powerful and lethal than a so-called dirty bomb, which is a conventional explosive packed with some dangerous radioactive material that would be dispersed by the explosion.

The 41 participants -- including the directors of the country's two nuclear weapons laboratories, Homeland Security officials, a number of top military commanders and former government officials -- discussed how all levels of government ought to respond to protect the country from a second nuclear attack, to limit health problems from the radioactive fallout and to restore civil order. Comments inside the session were confidential, but a number of the participants described their views and the ideas exchanged.

A paper the organizers are writing, summarizing their recommendations, urges local governments and individuals to build underground bomb shelters, much as people did in the early days of the Cold War; encourages authorities who survive to prevent evacuation of at least some of the areas attacked for three days to avoid roadway paralysis and damage from exposure to radioactive fallout; and proposes suspending regulations on radiation exposure so that first responders would be able to act, even if that caused higher cancer rates.

"The public at large will expect that their government had thought through this possibility and to have planned for it," Carter said in an interview. "This kind of an event would be unprecedented. We have had glimpses of something like this with Hiroshima, and glimpses with 9/11 and with Katrina. But those are only glimpses."

Perhaps the most sobering issue discussed was the possibility of a chaotic, long-term crisis triggered by fears that the attackers might have more bombs. Such uncertainty could sow panic nationwide.

"If one bomb goes off, there are likely to be more to follow," Carter said. "This fact, that nuclear terrorism will appear as a syndrome rather than a single episode, has major consequences." It would, he added, require powerful government intervention to force people to do something many may resist -- staying put.

Fred Ikle, a former Defense Department official in the Reagan administration who authored a book last year urging attack preparation, "Annihilation from Within," said that the government should plan how it could restrict civil liberties and enforce a sort of martial law in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, but also have guidelines for how those liberties could be restored later.

That prospect underscored a central divide among participants at the recent meeting, several said.

Some participants argued that the federal government needs to educate first responders and other officials as quickly as possible on how to act even if transportation and communication systems break down, as seems likely, and if the government is unable to issue orders.

"There was a clear consensus that a nuclear bomb detonated in the United States or a friendly country would be an earth-shaking event, and we need to know how we will respond beforehand," said Ikle. "I wish we had started earlier, because this kind of planning can make an important difference."

But others said the meeting made it clear that the results of any attack would be so devastating and the turmoil so difficult to control, if not impossible, that the lesson should have been that the U.S. government needs to place a far greater emphasis on prevention.

"Your cities would empty and people would completely lose confidence in the ability of the government to protect them," said Steve Fetter, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. "You'd have nothing that resembles our current social order. I'm not sure any preparation can be sufficient to deal with that."

Fetter added, "We have to hold current policymakers more responsible" for taking all out measures to prevent a nuclear attack.

Raymond Jeanloz, a nuclear weapons expert at UC Berkeley and a government adviser on nuclear issues, said that California might be better prepared than most states because of long-standing plans for dealing with earthquakes and other natural disasters. Those plans, he said, could be a useful model for first responders.

He added, as others did, that the dislocation and panic caused by a nuclear strike could make any responses unpredictable.

"The most difficult thing is the fear that this kind of planning, even talking about it, can cause," Jeanloz said.

Michael May, a former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, defended the survival planning, saying that people should get used to the idea that such a crisis, while dire, could be managed -- a key step in restoring calm.

"You have to demystify the nuclear issue," said May, who now teaches at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation. "By talking about this, you take away the feeling of helplessness."

E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com

The Project's Co-Directors are former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Ashton B. Carter. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John M. Shalikashvili and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall serve as Senior Advisors. Additional contributors to the Project include member of President Clinton's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Robert J. Hermann and former Deputy Secretary of Defense John P. White. Active on the Project’s track-two initiative with China are Dr. Michael H. Armacost, former Undersecretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to Japan and to the Philippines and Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, former Commander-in-Chief, United States Pacific Command. The Project is pleased that the following experts have agreed to lend their expertise to our North Korea initiative: General John H. Tilelli, Jr., former Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations Command, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea; Ambassador Stephen W. Bosworth, Dean of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea; and Dr. Kurt Campbell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

The Preventive Defense Project is a multi-year effort supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Herbert S. Winokur, Jr. Public Policy Fund, the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and private sources. The Preventive Defense Project would also like to acknowledge the generous contributions of the Packard Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Compton Foundation, Inc.

Recycling Nuclear Waste Too Dangerous

INSIGHTS: Recycling Nuclear Waste Too Dangerous
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007/2007-05-16-insalv.asp

(Thanks to Celeste M Johnson for head's up)

By Robert Alvarez

WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2007 (ENS) - As a senior energy adviser in the Clinton administration, I recall attending a briefing by the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 on the feasibility of recycling nuclear fuel. I'd been intrigued by the idea because of its promise to reduce the amount of waste that had to be buried, where it could conceivably seep into drinking water at some point in its multimillion-year-long half-lives.

But then came the Academy's unequivocal conclusion - the idea was supremely impractical. It would cost up to $500 billion in 1996 dollars and take 150 years to accomplish the transmutation of dangerous long-lived radioactive toxins.

President George W. Bush and his energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, have recently intensified their lobbying to revive nuclear recycling through a program they call the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP.

As I listened to Bodman describe GNEP as a sweeping panacea ­ to supply virtually limitless energy to emerging economies, to "reduce the number of required ... waste depositories to one for the remainder of this century" and to "enhance energy security, while promoting non-proliferation" ­ I kept waiting, as I did just over a decade ago, for the caveats. But they never came, even though the idea remains as costly and technologically unfeasible as it was in the 1990s.

Between 1993 and 1999, Robert Alvarez served in the Department of Energy as a senior policy advisor to the secretary of energy and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment. (Photo courtesy Robert Alvarez)Members of Congress, who will soon vote on the President's request for $405 million for GNEP in fiscal year 2008, should recognize that GNEP has no chance in our lifetimes of brightening the prospects of finding safe ways of nuclear fuel disposal.

In 1982, Congress enacted legislation requiring that nuclear power spent fuel be disposed of in ways that shield humans for at least hundreds of millennia.

But today, a quarter-century later, prospects for long-term disposal are dimmer than ever. The government's nuclear waste disposal program is plagued by scandal, legal setbacks and congressional funding cuts. As a result, the schedule for the proposed Yucca Mountain disposal site in Nevada has slipped by two decades.

Under the President's plan, the United States and its nuclear partners would sell power reactors to developing nations who agree not to pursue technologies that would aid nuclear weapons production, notably reprocessing and uranium enrichment. To sweeten the deal, the United States would take highly radioactive spent fuel rods to a recycling center in this country.

The foreign reactor wastes, along with spent fuel from the U.S. reactor fleet, would be reprocessed to reduce the amount that would go deep underground. Nuclear explosive materials, such as plutonium, would also be separated and converted to less troublesome isotopes in a new generation of reactors.

In short, using the Bush administration's fuzzy nuclear math, more would become less.In fact, however, to reduce the amount of radioactive wastes slated for a deep geological repository, the majority of radioactive byproducts are planned to be stored in shallow burial. The site selected for the GNEP recycling center is likely to become a dump for the largest, lethal source of high-heat radioactivity in the United States and possibly the world.

If placed in a crowded area, a few grams of these wastes would deliver lethal doses in a matter of seconds. Concentrations could be so large that if they were disposed of under current standards in shallow land burial as low-level wastes, shortly after separation they would have to be diluted to a volume as large as 500 million cubic meters, enough to fill 500 Empire State Buildings.

The plan would also threaten water supplies. For instance, it could result in levels of radioactive disposal thousands of times greater than now allowed at DOE's Savannah River site in South Carolina.

The Bush administration lacks (or at least, has yet to disclose) credible plans for addressing any of the unprecedented health, safety and financial risks that GNEP would create. Unless the administration can furnish these details, the public should urge their legislators to zero out GNEP's budget.

We are better off by investing in renewable energy and conservation, rather than pouring billions of dollars into the same old limitless energy schemes of our nuclear laboratories.

{Robert Alvarez is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. Between 1993 and 1999, he served as a senior policy advisor to the secretary of energy and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment.}

Bumper Sticker Idea For Entergy-The Wheels Protest

Anyone know someone willing to print us up some Bumper Stickers? If you are an anti nuclear printer, and would like to contribute some Bumper Stickers, please contact our publisher at roycepenstinger@aol.com

Ossining Chamber of Commerce Siding With Entergy and Their Tritium Leaking Indian Point Reactors?

This just in from a little bird....

Seems that the Ossining Chamber of Commerce is having a one sided presentation on "Where Electricity Comes From" with the primary guest speaker Entergy's own societal misfit, Jim Steets (new nick name is poop drinker). For those not familair with this Indian Point mouth piece and his work, when the news about tritium leaking into Buchanans sewer system went public, he quipped to a reporter, well, if it were not for the other stuff in the sewage, its clean enough to drink. What a guy.

We need some of the folks from our side of the equation to show up at this meeting to present the other side, "Where Energy SHOULD NOT COME FROM", which is failing antiquated reactors that are leaking strontium 90 and tritium into the Hudson River on a daily basis.

Here Are The Meeting Details:

The Ossining Chamber of Commerce is having STEETS at their meeting on Monday. (GNB thinks it would be nice if some of us showed up to PRESENT THE TRUTH.)

It would be good to get some of our folks there.

DETAILS:
from http://www.ossiningchamber.org/default.aspx#calendar

Chamber Meetings
THE TRUTH ABOUT ELECTRIC POWER AND THE FAILING iNDIAN POINT REACTORS OWNED BY ENTERGY
Who Generates it, who transmits it, who gets paid for it.
Monday, May 21st
Speakers:
representatives from:
Con Edison
Entergy Nuclear
NY Power Authority

-----------------------------------------------

All meetings start at 7 p.m. for a 1/2 hour of networking, with the program beginning at 7:30. Meetings are held at the Ossining Community Center at 95 Broadway.

Don DeBar
RG Agency
PO Box 431
1000 N Division St.
Peekskill, NY 10566
tel (914) 739-2700
fax (914) 739-2808
RGDon@bestweb.net
http://www.rgtitleagency.com

Yet Another Indian Point Alarm FAILURE

As we all know, yesterday saw a typical May thunderstorm whisk through the area with high gusting winds, and sheets of rain. Like the spring rains, another typical Entergy event unfolded yesterday as well. In their usual inept fashion, 26 of the 156 sirens FAILED to go off, requiring Indian Point to notify the NRC...think about it folks, if this had been a real emergency, 1 in 6 of us would not have heard these non-working failed sirens. In a fast moving event at the failing Indian Point Nuclear Reactors, time is everything, and every second, every non working siren is LIFE LOST...it could be yours, or it could be your child, but someone will die. We need to pull the plug on Indian Point.

LOSS OF 26 EMERGENCY SIRENS DUE TO SEVERE WEATHER

"Due to severe weather storms in the area surrounding Indian Point Energy Center, 26 of the 156 emergency sirens have been out of service as of 1655 hours on 5/16/07 due to either loss of local AC power (24 sirens) or communications problem (2 sirens). 15 of the 26 sirens are in Rockland County; the remaining 11 sirens are in Westchester County. Sirens in Orange and Putnam counties were unaffected. Rockland and Westchester Counties have been notified and route alerting is available as an alternate means of public notification. Additionally, a high speed telephone notification system is available for public notification by the counties. Contact of the local utilities has been initiated to request power restoration to the areas associated with the 24 effected sirens; the communication problems with the remaining 2 sirens are under investigation."

The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector, New York State Public Service Commission, and Rockland, Westchester, Putnam and Orange counties.

Congressman Hall's strange bed fellow

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



From:
Congressman Christopher Shays

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007

Subject:
Congressman Christopher Shays
May 11, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully Submitted

Sherwood Martinelli
351 Dyckman
Peekskill, New York 10566

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

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

Official Request for Fee Waivers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sherwood Martinelli

Indian Point Contaminating Buchanan Sewers-What's Next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Day To Sign On To Petition To Dismiss Indian Point License Applications

Indian Point Death and Cancer Zones

Just a heads up to our readers. Today is the last day to sign onto our Petition for Rule Making that seeks to dismiss the co-filed license renewal application for Indian Point Reactors 2 and 3. You can read the petition here. Dead for being added on too this petition is midnight, as it will be delivered to the NRC tomorrow morning. If you live within 50 miles of ANY NUCLEAR REACTOR in American, you can sign this important petition.

To sign on, please send your name and address to roycepenstinger@aol.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/

Let Indian Point Prove Evacuation Plan Works Under Terrorist Attack Scenario

In a previous post, I've pointed out that the NRC's DBT and the Force on Force Exercises that are derived from it, at best, are a cruel joke on host communities. Further, we all know that Indian Points evacuation plan WILL NOT WORK. In fact, Sam Collins of the NRC admitted as much in a recent public meeting when he stated to the audience that, in the case of a fast moving nuclear incident or terrorist event at the plant, evacuation would not work, and FEMA would have to rely upon sheltering in place.

In an article posted this week, GNB shared with our readers a slide from a Centers for Disease Control presentation that show people sheltered in their homes would only have a 40 percent level of protection from the radioactive matter released in a nuclear event. For those without a basement, or those living in say a trailer, such as the park just up Route 9, the level of protection if sheltered in place drops to and even more deplorable ten percent level.

I bring this up, as it is time for reactor licensees to prove their evacuation and/or emergency plans are workable, by proving it with a full blown emergency plan implementation exercise as a part of the relicensing process. Such a precedent for such an exercise is no longer without precedent, as a 4,000 member strong contingent held the first ever large scale terrorist attack nuke crisis emergency exercise in Marion, Indiana at a cost of $700,000. To put that financial cost into perspective, $700,000 is less than one days revenue stream for the Indian Point reactors...since they seek a 20 year license renewal, such a figure is NOTHING in the big picture for their revenues.

Thinking it is time to write up another Petition For Rule Making here.

May 07, Indianapolis Star (IN) — Safety crews to simulate nuke crisis. Some 700 police and fire officials from Marion County, IN, will be part of the 4,000-strong contingent that will respond to a simulated nuclear disaster later this week at a cost of $700,000, Public Safety Director Earl Morgan said Monday, May 7. Military and public safety officials often practice their craft in simulated circumstances, but this will be the nation’s first-ever scenario depicting a situation in which a nuclear device is detonated in an American city by terrorists. The training exercise takes place Thursday through Sunday at the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center in Jennings County on the grounds of a complex of buildings constructed in the early 1900s. Source: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070507
LOCAL/70507032

Neil Sheehan Admits Indian Point One Continues To Radiological Pollute Hudson River

We here at GNB had gotten reports (which we still believe true) that radioactively contaminated water from Indian Point 1 (which is supposed to be in SAFSTOR) was being carted off site to some unknown destination. I brought this allegation to the attention of Neil Sheehan, who said he would look into it, and get back to me.

In an email from him (copied below), he said the allegations were untrue. Water from Indian Point 1 after being treated was slowly being released into the Hudson River. In his letter, he assures us that the water is within legal limits...what he does not tell us, is a facility that has been shut down now for almost 30 years is still putting radioactive wastes into the Hudson River. What he also does not tell us, is that reactor 1 has been tied to Indian Point 2...what that means, is instead of reactor 1 being decommissioned and released in a period of not more than 60 years, its decommissioning will not begin until the decommissioning of unit 2 begins. That should be an unacceptable reality for everyone living in the community. One last note...with Barnwell being closed to Indian Points low level radioactive wastes beginning next year, where is that waste now going to be stored? At the facility!

Mr. Martinelli,

I checked with our technical staff. They inform me that while filters used in the cleanup of contaminated water at Indian Point 1 are disposed of off-site, at sanctioned facilities such as Barnwell in South Carolina, no water from the facility is being taken off-site. Any water collected there is treated, sampled and then eventually released in a slow, controlled manner into the river, provided that it is within allowable limits.

Neil Sheehan
NRC Public Affairs

Green NRC Non-Cited Violations Amount to No Regulatory Control

Found a finding in a GAO report from 2003 rather interesting, as it clearly points out the fallacy of NRC's non-regulatory Green non-cited regulatory enforcement policies for their licensees. With almost every licensee violation now non-cited, we are less safe, and their is no real incentive for the licensees to do better. The green rating, color coded system needs to go. A violation of 10 CFR rules is that, a violation, and when one is found, it should be cited, and the licensee FINED.

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d03752.html
First, NRC inspectors often used a process that minimized the significance of security problems found in annual inspections by classifying them as “non-cited violations” if the problem had not been identified frequently in the past or if the problem had no direct, immediate, adverse consequences at the time it was identified. Non- cited violations do not require a written response from the licensee and do not require NRC inspectors to verify that the problem has been corrected. For example, guards at one plant failed to physically search several individuals for metal objects after a walk-through detector and a hand-held scanner detected metal objects in their clothing. The unchecked individuals were then allowed unescorted access throughout the plant’s protected area. By making extensive use of non-cited violations for serious problems, NRC may overstate the level of security at a power plant and reduce the likelihood that needed improvements are made.

NRC Cover Up Of Potential Criticality Accident-Can They Even Be Trusted?

In a barely noticed report hidden deep within the bowels of the Federal Registry was a report to Dick Cheney (worm butt) about a Criticality Incident that details the HEU spillage, which took place at Nuclear Fuel Services' (NFS's) fuel fabrication facility in Erwin, Tennessee, on 6 March 2006. Not once but twice during the CAREFULLY HIDDEN (as in coverup) incident, materials gather in a fashion that we could have had a critacality incident...as in, a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION! HEU is not your ordinary run of the mill uranium, but instead, uranium enriched to the point that between 20-90% of the material is U-235, the isotope usually split to release energy. Military reactors for naval power and propulsion are fuelled by HEU fuel, which is made at certain designated facilities under NRC oversight.

The timing for this cover up is suspicious, and when coupled with the NRC's blind rubber stamping of license renewal and the push for a Nuclear Renaissance, obviosly vile, deliberate and brazen. So the question becomes, can the NRC be trusted? Has the time come to disband the NRC, giving oversight of NRC's licensees to the US EPA? Has the time come for the United States Department of Justice to bring a RICO suit against NRC, NEI and the nuclear industry?

Military event revealed after over a year
09 May 2007
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/regulationSafety/090507Military_event_revealed_after_over_a_year.shtml
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) annual report on 'abnormal events' has revealed a serious spill of high-enriched uranium (HEU) solution at a facility used to make nuclear fuel for naval reactors. No workers were hurt.

A recently published NRC report to Vice President Dick Cheney, published in the US Federal Register, details the events from FY2006 which commissioners consider to be significant from the standpoint of public health and safety. One passage details the HEU spillage, which took place at Nuclear Fuel Services' (NFS's) fuel fabrication facility in Erwin, Tennessee, on 6 March 2006.

NRC reveals nuclear spill
Commission tells Congress
of 2006 incident in Tennessee

By Duncan Mansfield
Associated Press Writer

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070509/nrc.shtml

KNOXVILLE — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed in a new report to Congress that a nuclear chain-reaction accident nearly occurred 14 months ago at a nuclear fuels processing plant in Tennessee.

About 35 liters, or just over 9 gallons, of highly enriched uranium solution spilled March 6, 2006, at the Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. facility in Erwin, about 15 miles south of Johnson City, the NRC said in a report published Friday in the Federal Register.

The solution leaked into a protected glovebox, then flowed onto the floor and into an old elevator pit at the plant, which has been making nuclear fuel for Navy submarines and commercial reactors since 1957.

"Criticality," or a sustained nuclear chain reaction that releases radiation, was possible as the uranium pooled in both the box and the elevator pit, the NRC said.

"If a criticality accident had occurred in the filtered glovebox or the elevator pit, it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death," the NRC report said.

"Nobody got hurt. There was no danger to the general public," NRC spokesman David McIntyre said Tuesday. "(But) they were lucky and we don't like them to be lucky, we like them to be careful."

The incident might never have been disclosed publicly if not for laws requiring the NRC to annually report "abnormal occurrences" of its license-holders to Congress.

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

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

Entergy's Steets Shows Arse Hole In Tritium Sewage Comment to Press

For most of us, the fact that yet another tritium leak has been identified at Entergy's failing Indian Point, site of two aging, brittled reactors is not unexpected. The NRC in their quest for a Nuclear Renaissance is trying to sweep significant aging issues under the carpet so they can wrongfully renew the licenses for these ancient decaying reactors for another 20 years. What was rude, crude and deplorable was the Entergy spokesperson's (Steets) obnoxiously insentive remark to the press. He basically inferred, that barring the other contaminants normally found in sewage, the liquid was safe enough to drink...sounds like something a Indian Point employee named Lessard might have spoken just before goiing off the deep end and killing his wife and kid before committing suicide...just a suggestion, but if Steets cannot handle his duties as spokesperson in a more professional manner, maybe he needs to go on paid leave as well?

Radioactive isotope found in sewer leading to Buchanan
By GREG CLARY
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: May 9, 2007)

BUCHANAN - Indian Point officials have found traces of tritium in the nuclear plant's sewer pipes that connect to the Buchanan sewage system, the first indication that the radioactive isotope may be reaching the village.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials confirmed the report earlier today, saying they would be independently verifying the test results sent in a company e-mail to Buchanan and other elected officials and the agency.

The memo, obtained by the Journal News, stated that during an April 30th test of sewage at the plant, tritium was found at a radiation concentration of 8,000 pico curies per liter - a fraction of the 10 million pico curies per liter allowed in sewage.

"We will be confirming those results independently," said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. "We do have an inspector up there this week who specializes in the whole groundwater contamination issue, so we'll be following up on that."

The plants have been leaking tritium since at least August 2005, when workers discovered a crack at the base of a building that houses a spent-fuel pool.

Strontium 90, a more radioactive isotope, was discovered to be leaking as well when the plant began investigating the tritium leak. The two leaks do not appear to be connected, company officials have said.

Hydrologists and other experts had said that whatever leaking radiation was leaving the site was likely going into the Hudson River, where it would be diluted many times over by the large volume of water.

Sheehan said the NRC wants more information about how tritium could have "gotten into the presumably closed sewage disposal system."

An Entergy hydrology expert said yesterday the company has already taken more samples and would be testing for strontium 90 in the sewage effluent as well as tritium.