ML071340246

G20070331/LTR-07-0336/EDATS: SECY-2007-0140 - E-mail Royce Penstinger Indian Point Unit 1 as It Relates to the Unit 2 & # License Renewal (Lr)

ML071340246
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/09/2007
From:	Penstinger R - No Known Affiliation
To:	Barkley R, Klein D NRC/Chairman, NRC Region 1
References
EDATS: SECY-2007-0140, G20070331, LTR-07-0336, SECY-2007-0140
Download: ML071340246 (6)

Text

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM: DUE: 06/05/07 EDO CONTROL: G20070331 DOC DT: 05/09/07 FINAL REPLY: Sherwood Martinelli Peekskill, New York TO: Chairman Klein FOR SIGNATURE OF : Zimmerman, NSIR** GRN **CRC NO: 07-0336 DESC: ROUTING: Indina Point -Sheltering In Place DATE: 05/11/07 Reyes Virgilio Kane Ash Silber Cyr/Burns Zimmerman, NSIR Dyer, NRR ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: RI Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: Coordinate with NSIR and NRR, as appropriate.-f" IAcdQ. e,%.c+iu -0oq 5; (ýLz'Y-61 EDATS Number: SECY-2007-0140 Initiating Office: SECY Genra Infomaion Assigned To: Region I Other Assignees:

Subject:

Indian Point -Sheltering in Place

Description:

CC Routing: NSIR; NRR ADAMS Accession Numbers -Incoming:

NONE OEDO Due Date: 6/5/2007 5:00 PM SECY Due Date: 6/5/2007 5:00 PM Response/Package:

NONE Othe Infraion Cross Reference Number: G2007033 I, LTR-07-0336 Related Task: File Routing: EDATS Staff Initiated:

NO Recurring Item: NO Agency Lesson Learned: NO[oI In i Action Type: Letter Priority:

Medium Sensitivity:

None Signature Level: Region I Urgency: NO OEDO Concurrence:

NO OCM Concurrence:

NO OCA Concurrence:

NO Special Instructions:

Coordinate with NSIR and NRR, as appropriate.

Originator Name: Sherwood Martinelli Date of Incoming:

5/9/2007 Originating Organization:

Citizens Document Received by SECY Date: 5/11/2007 Addressee:

Chairman Klein Date Response Requested by Originator:

NONE Incoming Task Received:

E-mail Page 1 of I OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: May I1, 2007 10-42 PAPER NUMBER: ACTION OFFICE: LTR-07-0336 EDO LOGGING DATE: 05/10/2007 AUTHOR: AFFILIATION:

ADDRESSEE:

SUBJECT:

ACTION: DISTRIBUTION:

LETTER DATE: ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING: Sherwood Martinelli NY CHRM Dale Klein Indian Point Unit I as it relates to the Unit 2 & # license renewals Direct Reply RF, SECY to Ack.05/09/2007 No Immediate release to the public via SECY/EDO/DPC NOTES: FILE LOCATION: ADAMS DATE DUE: 06/05/2007 DATE SIGNED: EDO --G20070331 Page 1 of.2 ,PHAIRMAN

-Re: Indian Point Unit 1 as it Relates to the Unit 2 & # License Renewal (LR) ...From: <RoycePenstinger@

aol.com>To: <RSB1 @nrc.gov>, <chairman@nrc.gov>, <Palisadesart@aol.com>, <pgunter@nirs.org>,<garyfromvermont

@ yahoo.com>, <deb @ nukebusters.org>, <acer8sac

@ comcast.net>,<gclary@lohud.com>, <editor@ ncnlocal.com>, <remyc @ optonline.net>

Date: 05/09/2007 11:44 AM

Subject:

Re: Indian Point Unit 1 as it Relates to the Unit 2 & # License Renewal (LR) ...

Dear NRC (Rich):

As shown in the slide below from a Centers For Disease Control Presentation/Document, the amount of protective shielding for stakeholder members of the general public living in and around a Nuclear Reactor facility, if we are ordered to shelter in place in the case of a significant nuclear incident and or terrorist attack is a scant 40 percent. This means, that in the best of scenarios, following all instructions in the Emergency Evacuation Plan booklet pertaining to Sheltering In Place, we are vulnerable to 60 percent exposures ratios even inside our supposedly protected and shielded basement area.Is it the NRC's position both legally and morally that a sheltering plan that leaves citizens vulnerable to 60 percent. of radioactive materials released from a reactor (in a best case situation) is and acceptable level of risk reduction on the part of their licensees in a fast moving nuclear event. Keep in mind, that Sam Collins is on record as stating that evacuation would most likely not work in a fast moving event at Indian Point, and sheltering in place would most likely be the preferred option of dealing with the public in such and event. These protection level realities, give us less than a 50/50 chance of not being exposed to radioactive particulates, matter and gases that are known to cause both cancers and birth defects. I would like a written response to this issue, and would like the NRC to specifically state their position for or against a sheltering plan that would only afford a 40 percent level of shielding protection.

Sherwood Martinelli 351 Dyckman Peekskill, New York 10566 ComnShelter Stutr Doe Redu[cTtrion

_____ _____ ___Factor-s Woo Fram (Iefoo),0 Wood Frm (Bsmn) 40%file://C:\temp\GW

}O0001.HTM 05/09/2007 4 -*Mail Envelope Properties

Subject:

Re: In (LR) ...Creation Date Wed, From: <Roy4 Created By: Roycc Recipients nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 CHAIRMAN nrc.gov kpl-po.KPDO RSB 1 (Richard Barkley)optonline.net remyc ncnlocal.com editor lohud.com gclary comcast.net acer8sac nukebusters.org deb yahoo.corn garyfromvermont nirs.org pgunter aol.com Palisadesart Post Office OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 kpl-po.KPDO (4641EC44.707:

8 : 63239)dian Point Unit 1 as it Relates to the Unit 2 & # License Renewal May 9, 2007 11:43 AM cePenstinger@

aol.com>Penstinger@

aol .com Route nrc.gov nrc.gov optonline.net ncnlocal.com lohud.com comcast.net nukebusteis.org yahoo.com nirs.org aol.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1763 Wednesday, May 9, 2007 11:43 AM TEXT.htm 2691 about2.jpg 65593 Mime.822 96628 Options Expiration Date: None Priority:

Standard ReplyRequested:

No Return Notification:

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled