ML060190582

Comment (27) Submitted by Jeff Wanshel on Proposed Rule PR-73 Regarding Design Basis Threat

ML060190582
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/19/2006
From:	Wanshel J - No Known Affiliation
To:	NRC/SECY
Ngbea E S
References
70FR67380 00027, PR-73, RIN 3150-AH60
Download: ML060190582 (3)

Text

l_SECY -ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff _ =_

. .ea.e Aee_-

From: <jwanshel ©earthlink.net>

To: <SECY@ nrc.gov> (1oR z473s°^ )

Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2006 11:26 AM ( J 3J2

Subject:

ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Dear Secretary ATTN:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, What follows is a form letter; I wholeheartedly subscribe to the sentiments expressed therein. DOCKETED USNRC Kindly allow me to add, as a resident who lives near Indian Point, that anyone with the intent to send explosives into January 19, 2006 (12:14pm)

Indian Point will find nothing to prevent them.

OFFICE OF SECRETARY Anyone who has intent can drive right past the place on the RULEMAKINGS AND river, or adjacent road, and do so; the view is unimpeded, ADJUDIPATIONS STAFF unobstructed; or take a small plane from the nearby airport for a similar purpose.

Kindly stop pretending to protect me and our community and actually do something about it.

PREPARED TEXT:

As a resident concerned about the current security measures required by the NRC for U.S. nuclear power plants, including the Indian Point nuclear power plant located a mere 24 miles north of New York City, I respectfully request that the NRC take into account the following measures as a means to improve security:

The revised Design Basis Threat (DBT) should require that a plant's private guard force is capable of repelling, at a minimum, an attack of the scope, size and sophistication equal to that carried out by Al Qaeda against the United States on September 11, 2001.

In order to fully comply with Section 651 (a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the NRC should either require that private security forces can protect a plant against an air attack, or formally acknowledge that the credible threat of an air-based attack exceeds the abilities of a private guard force to defend against under the DBT, and immediately request that the federal government assume responsibility for security at all domestic nuclear power plants.

The revised DBT Regulations should require that nuclear power plants situated on navigable waterways be equipped with visible, waterborne barriers, to both deter and protect against "waterborne vehicle bomb attacks" and a waterborne attack by a large armed force.

P(ae_

I SECY - ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Page 2 1 The revised DBT regulation should prohibit the corporations which supply the private guard forces at domestic nuclear power plants from staffing both the guard force and the team of "mock terrorists" that participate in Force-On-Force drills at the same plant, in order to avoid a clear conflict of interest.

Sincerely, jeff wanshel 1 spanish cove rd larchmont, New York 10538-3815

I c:\temp\GW)00001.TMP Ic:\temp\GW)O0001 .TMP Page Page 11 I Mail Envelope Properties (43CFBDB4.890: 2: 43152)

Subject:

ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Creation Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2006 11:25 AM From: <iwanshel @earthlink.net>

Created By: iwanshel @earthlink.net Recipients nrc.gov owf5-po.OWFNDO SECY (SECY)

Post Office Route owfSpo.WFNDO nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2418 Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:25 AM Mime.822 3229 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard