ML070530032
| ML070530032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/31/2007 |
| From: | Goyette R - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Dyer J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML070540172 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MD4460, Y020070038 | |
| Download: ML070530032 (3) | |
Text
Original Due Date: 03/07/2007
'Ticket Number: 020070038 Document Date: 01/31/2007 NRR Received Date: 02/21/2007 From:
TACs:
Russell Goyette MD4460 To:
- YELLOW ***
J.E. Dyer For Signature of:
==
Description:==
Review of Oyster Creek License Renewal Application Routing:
Dyer Weber Mitchell Grobe Boger NRR Mailroom
Contact:
KUO, PAO-TSIN T Assigned To:
DLR Special Instructions:
Russell W. Goyette 7 Strathmere Street Waretown, NJ 08758 January 31, 2007 Mr. J. E. Dyer, Director Office of Nuclear Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF OYSTER CREEK LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. Dyer:
I appreciate your letter dated December 6 and the volumes sent to me under separate cover regarding the licensing of Oyster Creek to operate into the future.
I am neither a lawyer nor a scientist. Let the lawyers deal with legal issues and the scientists deal with scientific matters. I did reach the level of Senior Vice President, Director of Strategic Planning within the world's largest service organization. My area of expertise is marketing. In marketing, common sense prevails. I have extensive experience dealing with "common sense" issues.
But, more importantly, I live about three miles from the Oyster Creek nuclear plant.
In its review process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), must deal with the following "common sense" issues:
- 1.
Spent nuclear fuel rods are currently stored on-site. Continued operation would only contribute to this on-site storage problem, making Oyster Creek a more attractive terrorist target over time.
- 2.
No real evacuation plan exists for Oyster Creek, making it particularly vulnerable in the event of terrorist attack or mishap. Only three evacuation routes exist; in the event of an attack, one or all three of these routes could easily be blocked, making escape impossible.
- 3.
The plant was poorly designed (pre 9/11) and will only continue to deteriorate. Of Rust Bucket (as the plant is affectionately called locally) has suffered significant corrosion. It can only get worse. Twenty more years?
- 4.
The plant was never designed or situated to thwart terrorist attack. A little more fence and a few more machine guns may make some feel better, but the plant is still vulnerable,
- 5.
particularly from the air.
- 6.
The Oyster Creek location is a bad site for a nuclear plant. This site would never receive initial approval. It should not receive approval for continued operation. There are simply too many people now living in the area, especially in the summer months. The absence of realistic evacuation plans exacerbate the people problem.
- 6.
Years ago, iodine pills were widely distributed to area residents. Residents were told these pills were to offset the effects of possible radiation from the plant. The distribution of these pills was an admission that the plant could emit radiation. These pills are no longer distributed. The plant, and the possibility of radiation, still exist.
- 7.
The operating track record of plant management is dismal, in fact, among the worst in the nation. To trust this group with the responsibility of operating a nuclear plant for another twenty years is irresponsible.
It defies "common sense" to contend that it is the responsibility of the military to defend against terrorist attack. We have a huge crater in Downtown Manhattan to remind us terrorists are real and intend to kill. We have Madrid and London to remind us that terrorism is now. We have the recent discovery of imbedded terrorist cells to remind us that terrorists are here in New Jersey.
The first step in guarding against terrorism is how and where we build and operate nuclear facilities. Design them so they are defendable. Place them out of harms way, away from population masses, with good evacuation plans. Store the waste safely. Place your trust in competent people. Much of the above is within the domain of the NRC. As stated above, the risk is not only in California, not only in the ninth district.
Let "common sense" prevail. Oyster Creek should not be permitted to continue operation.
Sincerely, cc:
Kent Tosch, Chief, NJ DEP; Bureau of Nuclear Engineering "cyCd( u)
/icc Ron Zak, NJ DEP Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders Cindy Zipf, Paul Gunter Dr. Michael J. Kennish, Rutgers Richard Webster, Rutgers Paul Gunter, Director - Nuclear Watchdog Project Mrs. Edith Gbur, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch Julia LeMense Huff Esq., Rutgers Law Clinic The Honorable James Saxton, US House of Representatives