ML063530009
| ML063530009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 12/11/2006 |
| From: | Goyette R - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Masnik M NRC/NRR/ADRO |
| References | |
| %dam200701 | |
| Download: ML063530009 (8) | |
Text
Russell W. Goyette 7 Strathmere Street Waretown, NJ 08758 December 11, 2006 Mr. Michael Masnik US NRC MSi 0-1IF1 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Oyster Creek-past correspondence
Dear Mike:
I really enjoyed talking with you this morning. Your candor, knowledge of the area and knowledge of the subject matter made you the most refreshing person I've talked to at the NRC.
You gave your agency more credibility than you can believe.
Attached are more letters than you bargained for. Read them and you will pretty much be up to date. Don't read them and I will understand; you are probably very busy. I'm still trying to get a picture of the now infamous crab claw.
I wish the NRC were more believable. They appear to be a "rubber stamp" for the administration and the nuclear industry. Even the name Nuclear Regulatory Commission connotes that "nuclear" is the only path worth following. How about ethanol (Brazil uses ethanol for 100% of its fuel needs), methane (from our land-fills), wind power (look at Holland), water power (Paterson Falls is unused), solar power (promising in some parts of the country). In this country, the hotbed of technology, are we pursuing alternatives?
Until we get there, let's make nuclear power safely. Oyster Creek is no longer safe.
Sincerely, T[-
Attachments: Too much reading
Russell W. Goyette 7 Strathrmere Street Waretown, NJ 08758 December 7, 2006 Mr. J. E.Dyer, Director Office of' Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washintgton, DC 20555 - 0001 RE: Relicensing Oyster Creek
Dear Mr. Dyer:
Thank you very much for your letter dated October 10, 2006. in that letter you attempted to provide a very detailed explanation of the approval process, addressing the specific topics menti~ned in my letter of August 25, 2006. 1 appreciate your responses.
It becaLme apparent to me that the approval process is severely faul ted.- It is a piecemeal process, ratherKthan a comprehensive one. There are two overall questions that never seem to be addressed:
- 1. There are simply too many people in the area to have a nuclear power plant, especially irn the summer with all the vacationers.
Especially with the area's population explosion in the past 30 years, there are simply too few evacuation routes to allow evacuation in the event of a mishap nor terrorist attack. Katrina taught us one undeniable'fact: evacuation plans may work, on paper, but in reality, they just don't work. Current evacuation plans, prepared by State Police, are a best-case scenario. Be assured, if there is a terrorist attack, it will be coordinated; evacuation routes will be easily blocked - creating a greater loss of life.
- 2. I-Highly radioactive spent fuel rods are currently stored on-site. We need a safe depositoiy (or depositories) for nuclear waste.
The longer Oyster Creek operates. the larger this bazzrd gets. The bigger the hazzard, the better the target.
Let tre respectfully suggest that the NRC / Administration take the following course of action:
U
CONTINUE TO BUIL/IiMPROVE THE GRID.
It will become inc-easingly important to be abie to move large amounts of electricity frcm region to region.
BUILD NEW PLANTS IN ISOLATED AREAS.
Even build new nuclear plants, to decrease our reliance on foreign oil, at least until alternate forms of energy are developed. Isolated locations should be easier to defend.
DEVELOP A NAT! IONXL DEPOSITORY (OR REGIONAL DEPOSITOIRI[ýS) T7 STORE NUCLEAR WASTE We also must have a safe means to transport this dangerous waste from plant to depository.
Thank yoq for taking the time to read my opinions.
Sincerely,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 October 10, 2006 Zy/[Z If NIPOvS6 To3/4 i Mr. Ru isell W.ý Goyette 7Stratirmerestreet Warete wn, NJI 08758-2651 kA,9 l"7 .r-*- C "--i e((9
Dear r Goyeýtte:
On belialf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I arn responding to your letter of Augus 25, 2066, in which you identify concern.s related to the safe operation of the Oyster Creek uclear Generating Station (Oyster.Creek) and to the apparent absence of public hearin s. Welat the NRC are also concerned about the safe operation of Oyster Creek. We believ that th NRC's license renewal process, coupled with an inspection regimen frmple Ented t~rough our Reactor Oversight Process (ROP), provides the strong oversight neces ary to ensure safe plant operations.
The NýC's mission is to protect public health and safety and we apply a fundamental defenie-in-depth strategy for nuclear facilities such as Oyster Creek. The defense-in-depth strate~l encomnpasses design, construction, operation, training, event mitigation, and contin ency pilanning. For example, plant designs for containing the uranium fuel require embe ding the uranium in fuel pellets that are encased in fuel rods, which are placed in heavy steel' actor ,vessels that are inside robust containment buildings. In the unlikely occurrence of a sigrficant r~dioactive release, due to the failure of there three nuclear power p!ants have detailed emergency plans.
The NRF:C review of license renewal applications excludes security issues, since security systeins, structures, and components (SSCs) are outside the sccoe of license renewal. You indicte that the NRC has ignored the real risk of terrorism. We believe that the threat of terror sm is real and continuaily inspect security programs at operating reactors. Since the terrorfst attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC has issued orders to all nuclear power plant licensees reqcuiring them to implement additional security measures. The NRC 1,has verified that the C ,sterCrQeek facility is meeting the same stringent security requirements as other NRC-licened reactors.
The NRC reviiew of license renewal applications excludes evacuation plans, since the plans are unaff-ted by component aging effects. You state that there is an absence of realistic evac(*ation plans. Federal regulations require that comprehensive emergency plans be prepired and periodically exercised to assure that actions can and will be taken to notify and protec, the ppblic in the vicinity of a nuclear facility in the unlikely event of a radiological eme,*gency. Through emergency preparedness drills, NRC inspectors in conjunction with other federal, state, county, and local government officials verify the effectiveness of plant emergency plan$, including Oyster Creek's plan.
R. Goyette You state concerns about the drywell corrosion and the need for adequate testing. We are aware pf the corrosion and are concerned about the drywell being able to perform its intended functioh during the period of extended operation. In our Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with open items, we identified five open items associated with drywell corrosion, The NRC will not issue a renewed license until the Oyster Creek applicant fully addresses the open items. In additiotv the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent third party that reportj directly to the NRC Commissioners, will hold public meetings on the SER. You can access the Oyster Creek SER with open items on the NRC website httoJ.liiw nrc gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/aclicatioins/oystercreek. html#ser.
You sole that the data submitted by the applicant for Barnegat Bay is 35 years old. We recogrize that some of the data is out of date. However, more recent data is available. We will provid6 the results of the NRC assessment in the final Supplemental Environmený:al Impact Statement (SEIS), which will be published next year. We are basing our assessment on a varietj of data sources including data collected over the past year at the Oyster Creek plant.
You con access the draft SEIS and the SEIS, when it is published, on the NRC Website http:Livw nrc.*ov/readin*-rm/doc-collectionslnuregslstaff/srl43-/suuplement28,index. html.
You slate that public hearings simply do not take place. To the contrary, the NRC affords interepted persons the opportunity to participate in NRC licensing hearings, provided a petitioper meets certain formal requirements. In the case of Oyster Creek, the NIRC convened an AtLrmic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) that received petitions submitted, n November 2005,,ty the State of New Jersey and six organizations raising contentions associated with the licens'p renewal application. Although denied intervention, the State of New Jersey has an appeal pending before the Commission. The six organizations have contentions pending befori the ASLB.
In adoition, the NRC follows a formal and public process that affords the public the opportunity to paeticipate in the review of license renewal applications. We hold public meetings near each plantjfr which a renewed license is requested, and encourage public participation. In addition to re-i-wing license renewal applications, we maintain vigilance over safety performance of oper4ting reactors through ongoing licensing reviews and inspections and expanded oversight.
Wheter or not the Oyster Creek license is renewed, we will continue these inspections in a mander that protects public health and safety and the environment, and provides for regulatory actions that are open, effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.
I hope this letter has provided you with additional information about the license ranewal process to assuage your concerns.
Sincerely, J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Russell W. Govette 7 Strathmere Street Waretoxwn, NJ, 08758 October 3, 2006 Ms. Lisa P. Jackson NJ) DEP Commi sioner 4C 1 East State S Lreet 7*' Floor, East Wing P.O. Box 402 Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 RE: Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant- Marine Pollution D*-ar Ms. Jacksc.n:
I would like to Iring to your attention the fact that I have a crab claw, taken fr6m the dischar~ge waters of Oystei Creek, which is severely deformed by, I believe, radiation released from thoý plant. I believe that the radiation that caused this deformity also affects other marine life irt these waters.
As we both know, crabs are unlike many other ibrms -ofmarine life. in that they do not leave the area in cold weather months. Rather than migrate to warmer water, like fish, crabs bury themselves in mud for protection from the cold.
The crab in question was caught by a friend who once worked at the plant. He was reluctant to come forward with his find, for fear that coming forward may jeopardize his pension out of retaliation. Afit:r catching this crab, he vowed to never again fish or crab in these waters. e nicver did.
This crab claw was presented and photographed at the Men's Club meeting at the Greenbria Oceanaire clubhouse on Sept. 2:5.
Please let me know if you have any interest in this find.
Sincerely,
Russell W. GoytAe 7 Strathmere St~t Waretown, NJ 0758 October 4, 2006 Mr. J. E. Dyer, Director Ofice of Nuclear Regulation U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'Washington, DC 20555-0001 R': Oyster Creek Relicensing The Hidden Agenda of the NRC De*r Mr. Dyer:
I called your office last week (on Sept. 27) to get your response to my letter to you dated A-gust
- 25. You were nt available, but in your absence, ILspke9 jpjrank Gillespie-. He was unable'o allay my fears about the NRC's faulty review process. He did however buy you a weeý;
however, to date, no response.
The fact that the NRC chooses to ignore relevant information and accepts faulty (and out4at d) ckdta in its review to "ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment" fconrins that the NRC must be pursuing a hidden agenda.
1 cite two key considerations: The Absence of a Realistic Evacuation Plan and Evidence the Plant's Discharge Waters are Harming The Environment. Hurricane Katrina taught us &.at an evacuation plan might work on paper, but in reality it may not work in practice. The NJ state police provided a paper evacuation plan, but it was a "best-case" scenario. One thing we ca4 be assured of'is that if terrorists are involved, they will be well organized. It is easy to see howvone of the three evacuation routes could be blocked by terrorists. No blockage is planned for.
I have irrefutable proof that radiation from the plant has created deformed marine life. No-ae from the NRC cares to even see my evidence. Why? A hidden agenda? What safety?
If you are too busy, have someone contact rme.
Sincerely, Cc :'Fjk~iftpI&(N-RC-)y
Russell W. Goyvte 7 Strathmere Street Waretown, NJ 00*58 August 25, 2006 Mr, J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Dyer:
This letter relates to your letter to me, dated July 17, 2006. In your letter you state "NRC licensing reviews are conducted to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment." Apparently, this has not been so.
fi its application review, the NRC apparently has ignored the following:
The real risk of terrorism, especially after 9/11, and with a plant never designed to th~vart terrorist attack.
- The storage of highly dangerous radioactrive waste in a vulnerable location on plant grounds,
- The absence of a realistic evacuation plan, jeopardizing the safety of thousands of fople, especially seniors who have moved to the area since initial plant approval.
- The dry-wall liner, which protects the public from possible radiation, has suffered *fious corrosion and will not r*ceive adequate testing.
- The data submitted to evaluate damage to nearby Barnegat Bay is 35 years old. HoV about something more current?
Public hearings simply do not take place. The absence of public hearings is undemocratic.
Responsible people, like the state governor, local elected officials, the DEP Commissioner, te shoved aside, for fear of what they might say and "to move the approval process" along for Ihe nuclear industry.
The review process is clearly a sham. Public Safety? Not here!
Please respond T ImNIA Sincerely,
'~2a f~Al
-I~
'C-