ML073040406
| ML073040406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/2007 |
| From: | Shapiro S Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE) |
| To: | Klein D NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| EDATS: SECY-2007-0478, G20070767, LTR-07-0718, SECY-2007-0478 | |
| Download: ML073040406 (31) | |
Text
EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE:
/
/
EDO CONTROL: G20070767 DOC DT: 10/23/07 FINAL REPLY:
Susan Shapiro, et al.,
FUSE USA TO Chairman Klein FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO: 07-0718 DESC:
ROUTING:
Request for the GEIS to be Exempted as a Requirement of Part 10 CFR 51.6 - Requiring Entergy to Address All Category 1 and Category 2 Issues in the EIS (EDATS: SECY-2007-0478)
DATE: 10/31/07 Reyes Virgilio Kane Ash Ordaz Cyr/Burns
- West, OEDO ASSIGNED TO:
RI CONTACT:
Collins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
For Appropriate Action.
EDATS Number: SECY-2007-0478 Source: SECY Assigned To: Region I OEDO Due Date: NONE Other Assignees:
SECY Due Date: NONE
Subject:
Request for the GEIS to be Exempted as a Requirement of Part 1 0 CFR 51.6 - Requiring Entergy to Address All Category I and Category 2 Issues in the EIS
==
Description:==
CC Routing: NRR; FSME; OGC ADAMS Accession Numbers -
Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE Othe Infrmaio Cross Reference Number: G20070767, LTR-07-0718 Related Task:
File Routing: EDATS Staff Initiated: NO Recurring Item: NO Agency Lesson Learned: NO Roadmap Item: NO Process Infor ato Action Type: Appropriate Action Signature Level: No Signature Required OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions: For Appropriate Action.
Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Urgency: NO D
n I
ration Originator Name: Susan Shapiro, et al.,
Date of Incoming: 10/23/2007 Originating Organization: FUSE (Friends United for Document Received by SECY Date: 10/26/2007 Sustainable Energy)
Addressee: Chairman Klein Date Response Requested by Originator: NONE Incoming Task Received: Letter Page 1 of I
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed: Oct 25, 2007 14:21 PAPER NUMBER:
ACTION OFFICE:
_JQ:ý-07-0718 LOGGING DATE:
10/25/2007 AUTHOR:
AFFILIATION:
ADDRESSEE:
SUBJECT:
Susan Shapiro NY Dale Klein FUSE fobmal request fbr GElS to be exempted as a requirement of 10 CFR 51,6 ACTION:
DISTRIBUTION:
LETTER DATE:
ACKNOWLEDGED SPECIAL HANDLING:
NOTES:
FILE LOCATION:
Appropriate Chairman, Comrs, OGC 10/24/2007 Yes Made publicy available in ADAMS via EDO/DPC AD)AMS DATE DUE:
DATE SIGNED:
EDO -- G20070767
FUSE (FRIENDS UNITED FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY) 21 PERLMAN DRIVE SPRING VALLEY, NY 10977 (845) 371-2100 TEL (845) 371-3721 FAX FUSEUSA@YAHOO.COM 10/23/07 Honorable NRC Chairman Dale Klein 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville Pike, Maryland 20852 Cc:
Senator Hillary Clinton Senator Charles Schumer Governor Spitzer Attorney General Andrew Cuomo Congresswoman Nita Lowey Congressman John Hall Congressman Eliot Engel Congressman Maurice Hinchey RE: FORMAL REQUEST FOR THE GEIS to be EXEMPTED AS A REQUIREMENT OF PART 10 CFR 51.6, thereby requiring ENTERGY to ADDRESS ALL CATEGORY 1 and CATEGORY 2 ISSUES in the EIS.
Dear Chairman Klein:
This letter is to be construed and interpreted as a formal request by Friends United for Sustainable Energy USA, Inc. (FUSE) in the current license applicant for IP1 LLC, IP2 LLC, and IP3 LLC,'(referred to as "Entergy"),
for an exemption as is allowed under 10 CFR 51.6 which states:
§ 51.6 Specific exemptions.
The Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law and are otherwise in the public interest,
FUSE has members living within three mile to fifty miles of the Indian Point Energy Center, which houses NRC licensees in IP1 LLC, IP2 LLC, and IP3 LLC. Therefore, FUSE and the undersigned individuals qualify under 51.6 as a interested person(s) entitled to make application for an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR.51.6. Further, the exemption sought is A) within the law, and B) is otherwise in the public interest.
FUSE formally requests an exemption from any and all parts of the rules and regulations that exempt from consideration Category 1 issues.
Said exemption would thereby require the Applicant, in this case, Entergy, to address all Category 1 and Category 2 issues in the EIS Scoping Process for 1P2 and IP3.
Currently, Entergy has a License Renewal Application (LRA) pending before the Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations. As a part of the review of that application for license renewal, the NRC is at the beginning of the Environmental Scoping process wherein the Environmental Impacts and Costs associated with License Renewal are ascertained, and evaluated. Where appropriate, mitigation alternatives are explored, and eventually all of this information is published in a SEIS Environmental Report. It is in the public's best interest to have all issues (Category 1 and Category 2) at Indian Point fully and adequately examined in the EIS Scoping Process, with all mitigation alternatives, including denial of license renewal fully and completely explored.
FUSE represents thousands of residents living within 20 miles of the Indian Point Energy Center.
FUSE and the individual undersigned co-signers qualify under 51.6 as interested person(s) entitled to make application for the Category 1 issues to be included in the site-specific EIS Scoping Process, and request that GEIS be waived/exempted as a requirement of part (10 CFR 51). The exemption sought is within the law, and is in the public interest.
If this requested exemption is not granted, Entergy will be allowed to remain moot on over 60 issues that the NRC has categorized as being generic to all reactors, under 10 CFR 51, the implementing rule to fulfill the obligations of NEPA. Every Category 1 issue has Environmental Impacts that are very unique to the Indian Point Plant, and are site specific. It is pointed out here, that the NRC itself has stated each nuclear reactor site is unique and
different. Avoiding a comprehensive review of these unique issues would amount to criminal negligence on the part of Federal Regulators, in this case, the NRC.
The NRC should grant FUSE and the undersigned co-signers the requested exemption to 10 CFR 51 GEIS criteria, in order to best serve the public interest, thereby requiring Entergy to address all Category 1 and Category 2 issues in the EIS Scoping process in its License Renewal Application for IP2 and IP3 as site-specific issues for the following reasons:
- 1. The primary purpose of the NRC is to protect human health and the environment. Indian Point is unique among all nuclear reactor sites for the following reasons, including, but not limited to:
" The population mass within a 50 mile radius of Indian Point far exceeds 20 Million citizens, 8% of the U.S. Population, and is located in the most densely populated area surrounding a nuclear facility in the nation. Further, the general area surrounding Indian Point is the only American community to have suffered not one, but two successful terrorist attacks in less than 20 years.
" New York City, located 25 miles from the plant, is the hub of America's financial institutions.
A significant nuclear incident (accident) or terrorist attack on the facility that leads to off-site migration of radiological contaminants would be catastrophic in nature not only to the surrounding region, but the entire nation, as it could quickly lead to Environmental Costs in excess of half a trillion dollars which could bankrupt America.
" West Point Military Academy, the training ground for America's future leaders, and a vital American brain trust, which includes a U.S.
mint, is located less than 8 miles away.
- Further, Indian Point is the only reactor site that is leaking radioactive strontium 90 into the ground, groundwater and Hudson River.
Radioactive leak in concrete structure at Indian Point (http://www.gza.com/index.asp)
- Indian Point is located on an active fault line, the Ramapo fault. In light of the Japanese Earthquake that hit directly at the heart of the TEPCO reactors this summer, seismic issues should be fully reviewed in the EIS Scoping for Indian Point.
" On 9/11 at least one of the hijacked planes flew directly over Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors before it destroyed the World Trade Center.
- Since 9/11 Indian Point is considered one of the most attractive and vulnerable terrorist targets in the nation.
- 2. Additionally, the Indian Point site already has numerous non-compliance issues that place it in violation of NRC Rules and Regulations, with said issues already contaminating the environment, and increasing the risk to the general public. These risks include, but are not limited to:
A. Numerous members of Congress, and a majority of the elected officials and local communities question whether Indian Point is safe, and have repeatedly called for, and asked the NRC for an Independent Safety Assessment (ISA) because of non working sirens, a fatally flawed Emergency Plan, known spent fuel leaks, and a poor
safety record, including a host of cross cutting issues, sleeping guards and unethical business practices of Entergy.
B. Despite various extensions granted by the NRC, Entergy has yet to come into compliance with NRC regulations as relates to having a working siren system. FEMA recently failed the system, and a full review of Entergy's own documents shows that the system ordered and installed FAILS to meet the Design Basis Criteria.
Further, the old system as NRC records show also fails to come close to being in compliance with 10 CFR Rules and Regulations with a constant litany of assorted failures from alarms not sounding, to alarms sounding when they are not supposed to, thus frightening citizens.
C.
The State and County governments within the 10 mile Emergency Evacuation Zone have refused to certify the Emergency Evacuation Plan, and the Witt Report found that the Emergency Evacuation Plans are fundamentally flawed.
Dozens of communities have passed resolutions calling for an ISA. Public interest, and the voice of the public must be heard, and worked into the decision making process, and without this exemption, it is not.
It is pointed out here, that the Emergency Plan tells us, "When you hear the sirens, go inside and follow instructions."
However FEMA has admitted the Siren level is inadequate and therefore the sirens cannot be heard inside a house, or even inside a car. Therefore Entergy's system is useless.
D. Significant spent fuel pool leaks at IP1, IP2 and IP3 sites, which are leaking strontium 90, cesium 137 and tritium.
All the spent fuel pools at Indian Point show clear evidence of serious age-related degradation.
Yet, since 2005 Entergy has been unable to locate, identify, stop and remediate said leaks, and it appears with the passing of time that more of these leaks will continue to appear, and to worsen.
N Tritium Map (httD://www.gza.com/index.asp which is the home for Geo Environmental, Inc.)
E. A recently discovered leak at IP2 that was incorrectly categorized as a conduit leak was in fact a leak in the fuel transfer tube.
F. Entergy has been unable to locate and identify the leaks associated with reactor cooling system, which were only accidentally discovered when workers saw steam rising through the black top.
G, There are known Tritium, Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 plumes under the entire reactor site that are rapidly migrating towards the Hudson River. Said leaks, of approximately 350,000 gallons of radiological contaminants are polluting the potable water resources of New York State, in violation of New York State Law. Such leaks have been and continue to be unmonitored in violation of the NRC's own regulations.
Indian Point Worker on banks of the Hudson (httD://www.2za/com/index.asD' I
I I D r More disturbing, is that the NRC is not enforcing its own regulations by requiring Entergy to immediately remediate the leaks, because Entergy has been unable to identify the source of the leaks.
Instead the NRC is just KEEPING AN EYE on them, and addressing them at some future date and time, maybe during decommissioning.
To make matters even worse, due to the multi-layered, convoluted corporate ownership structure, Entergy could easily file for bankruptcy during decommissioning, thereby leaving the State and the Stakeholders to foot the bill to clean up the site. This is unacceptable regulatory oversight.
H. Both reactors are suffering severe BAC (Boric Acid Corrosion) of the reactor vessel heads... in fact, the corrosion issues are significant enough that Ejntergy has a standing order for new reactor vessel heads for IP2 and IP3 with delivery slated for 2011 and 2012 respectively. In order to install these vessel heads, it is probable that containment will have to be breached.
I. IP2 is one of the few reactors (3) in America to have suffered a significant Tube Rupture, back in 2000. Further, a recent Industry study has shown that tube fouling becomes a significant safety issue in pipes adjoining plugged pipes.
Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 together have literally hundreds of plugged pipes in the reactor cooling system. This serious safety issue creates tremendous risks of tube ruptures from vibrational corrosion and system fatigue.
J. The series 400 stainless steel roller bearings on the traveling water screens for IP3 have huge holes, which it is believed are caused by corrosive microbes or lack of maintenance, This condition has existed since 1991, yet remains unremediated.
K.
One of the steel containment plates at Indian Point is failing, which is admitted to in Entergy's License Renewal Application.
L.
Indian Point cannot meet the Fire regulations of 10 CFR, and in fact Entergy has just requested that the NRC further lower the SAFETY MARGINS for an already granted exemption from the rules and regulations. A litany of lowered SAFETY MARGINS through a never-ending stream of NRC granted exemptions, variations, reliefs and rule changes is not adequate regulatory oversight, and our community is being needlessly put at grave risk in the name of National Corporate Interests.
M. Due to the closure of Barnwell, the "low-level" radioactive waste site, Entergy is planning to turn Indian Point into a low level radioactive waste storage site without proper application and review.
N. Due to the failure of approval of Yucca Mountain, the spent fuel produced by Indian Point, which by regulation is to be stored on site only on an interim, temporary basis, such storage has now become indefinite and potentially permanent. In fact, EPRI, NEI, DOE and the NRC are exploring ways to justify leaving both high and low level waste streams where they sit on reactor sites for periods in excess of 100 years.
- 0. The Decommissioning Trust Funds for IP I, IP2 and IP3, are insufficient to restore the site, especially in light of the multiple leaks first noticed in 2005.
P.
Indian Point has failed to deliver on numerous commitments made in the original Final Environmental Impact Statements, including but not limited to:
i)
Both IP2 and IP3 commitment for Closed Cooling Systems, instead of a Once Through system.
ii) ) Has failed to create an 80 acre PUBLIC woodland park on the 235 acre Indian Point site, with walking paths.
iii)
Has failed to keep their promises relating to aesthetic issues, specifically landscaping to mitigate as much as possible the INDUSTRIAL BLIGHT on the panoramic view of the area that is so important to our tourist industry.
The NRC has acknowledged that each nuclear reactor site is unique, as clearly evidenced by the above stated non-generic issues. Indian Point has a plethora of site-specific issues that must be comprehensively evaluated in the EIS. The GEIS, and exclusion of all Category 1 issues in 10 CFR 54 unfairly eliminates important issues from the EIS Scoping process, eliminates our FULL RIGHTS to redress as (removed are) guaranteed in the First Amendment, and places our community in grave risk by basically sweeping important site-specific issues at Indian Point under the regulatory carpet.
It is not in the best interest of public health and safety, or the environment, to have a narrowly defined Scope in the EIS Scoping process.
By not fully evaluating the Environmental Impacts and Costs of the above stated non-generic issues, the NRC will fail to complete a reasonable and responsible EIS, as required by NEPA. Life, and the world we live in has changed dramatically since September 11, 2001, and the License Renewal GEIS fails to factor in that reality, fails to adequate recognize the fact that all those once Generic Issues are no longer Generic but site-specific important issues for communities living in high target areas such as New York and its surrounding suburbs.
As example, the NRC has attempted to keep the Emergency Plan as well as the Environmental Impacts and Costs of A) a significant nuclear incident with off-site radiological contamination, and B) a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear facility with off-site migration of radiological contaminants from being considered in the site-specific environmental impact statement.
The claimed reasoning for this is two fold. First, the Evacuation Plan is a
living document, constantly being revised and reworked as new information and experience dictates. Secondly, the NRC and the nuclear industry claim the likely chance of such events is so remote as to not warrant consideration.
However, FEMA and other agencies of the Federal Government including Homeland Security disagree. Below, is an excerpt from the FEMA web site:
Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Nuclear power plants use the heat generated from nuclear fission in a contained environment to convert water to steam, which powers generators to produce electricity.
Nuclear power plants operate in most states in the country and produce about 20 percent of the nation's power. Nearly 3 million Americans live within 10 miles of an operating nuclear power plant.
Although the construction and operation of these facilities are closely monitored and regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), accidents are possible. An accident could result in dangerous levels of radiation that could affect the health and safety of the public living near the nuclear power plant.
Local and state governments, federal agencies, and the electric utilities have emergency response plans in the event of a nuclear power plant incident. The plans define two "emergency planning zones." One zone covers an area within a 10-mile radius of the plant, where it is possible that people could be harmed by direct radiation exposure. The second zone covers a broader area, usually up to a 50-mile radius from the plant, where radioactive materials could contaminate water supplies, food crops, and livestock.
Even more disturbing on the FEMA web pages, is the fact that they have no information available for citizens on how to RECOVER from a radiological
event. Below, from the FEMA web site are the disasters they give specific recovery information on:
Specific Disaster Recovery Information Dam Failure Earthquake Fire or Wildfire Flood Hazardous Material Incident Landslide Thunderstorm Tsunami Wildfire Citizens in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey are in grave peril should a radiological event or terrorist attack occur with off-site migration of radiological contaminants. If, as in Hurricane Katrina, FEMA's emergency response ends up being a dismal failure, vast numbers of human lives are at risk. Those occurrences, the potential of Emergency Plan failure, and the resultant Environmental Impacts and Costs must be examined in the Site Specific Environmental Impact Statement.
A Radiological Disaster Declaration Some of Us Could Be Dead by the Time Such a Declaration is Issued
PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS January 3, 2000 to March 3, 2007 FEMA REGION X FEMA REGION VIII FEMA REGION VtI FEMA REGION I FEMA REGIONV (4)W
ý I=AO 0
The NRC must be held accountable to its organizing mandate which is to "give reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety".
Therefore the only way the NRC can reasonably assure public health and safety adequately is to conduct a comprehensive and fully scoped EIS that investigates ALL Category 1 and Category 2 issues associated with Entergy's License Renewal Application for IP2 LLC and IP3 LLC.
In the public interest the NRC should grant the requested exemption. The requested exemption meets the criteria of 10 CFR 51.6, and should be granted.
FUSE and the undersigned co-signers formally request that an exemption be granted to waive the GEIS for Entergy's specific License Renewal Applications for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, and require Entergy, the Applicant, to evaluate all Category 1 and Category 2 issues, for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3.
Additionally, FUSE and the undersigned co-signers formally request that the EIS for Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 scopes as two independent and separate EIS documents.
Respectfully Submitted, Susan Shapiro Counsel for FUSE USA Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA Vice President 351 Dyckman Street Peekskill, NY Thomas J. Abinanti Westchester County Legislator - Dist 12 61 Kathwood Road White Plains, NY 10607 Susan Zimet Ulster County Legislator, District #10 100 Butterville Rd New Paltz, NY 12561 Rockland County Conservation Association P.O. Box 123 Pomona, NY 10970 WestCAN 2A Adrian Court, Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
CrotonCIP - representing over 500 local citizens PO BOx 134 Croton on Hudson, NY Council on Intelligent Energy
& Conservation Policy 265 Madison Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583 Janet Bumet, Executive Director Ramapo River Watershed Intermunicipal Council PO Box 195 Hillbum, NY 10931 Douglas G. Wehrle Senior Vice President Loans and Grants Empire State Development 633 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Alice Slater Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, New York 446 E. 86 St.
New York, NY 10028 Remy Chevalier Rock The Reactors 25 Newtown Turnpike Weston, CT 06883 Citizens for Safe Energy Ashley Road Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706 Stephen Filler, Esq.
303 South Broadway, Suite 222 Tarrytown, NY 10591
Michel Lee, Esq.
265 Madison Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583 Dr. Sonya Shapiro 34 Scenic Drive Suffem, New York 10901 Mark Jacobs 46 Highland Drive Garrison, NY 10524 Judy Allen 24 Seifert Lane Putnam Valley, NY 10579 Maureen Ritter Campbell Ave Suffern, NY 10901 Dorice Madronero 4 Regis Ct.
Suffem, NY 10901 Daniel Wolff 12 Castle Heights Nyack, NY 10960 Elizabeth C. Segal 33 Fairview Avenue Tarrytown, NY 10591 Marilyn Elie 2A Adrian Court, Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567 Merce Williams 609 Columbus Ave.
NY, NY 10024
Laurie Taylor-Williams 609 Columbus Aver NY, NY 10024 Lyn Borek 8 Andrew Drive Chestnut Ridge, NY 10952 Chris Hunt 84 Mendham Ave.
Hasting-On-The Hudson, NY 10706 Tony LaMonte 284 City Island Avenue Apt. 3 The Bronx, New York 10464 Madeline Wilson 284 City Island Avenue Apt. 3 The Bronx, New York 10464 Lois Taylor 160 East Willow Tree Rd.
Spring Valley, N Y 10977 Mary Felegy 138 Old Haverstraw Rd.
Congers, NY 10920 Lee Livney 138 Old Haverstraw Rd Congers, NY 10920 Betty Hedges 11 Ladentown Road Pomona, New York 10970 Martha Roth 20 first Ave.
Nyack, NY 10960
Darcy Casteleiro 204 Radcliff drive Nyack, NY 10960 Mary Cronin 201 Cleveland Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Cheri Morreale 39 Pamela Road Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567 Amy B. Goldsmith 132 Cleveland Drive Croton on Hudson, New York 10520 Jeanne McDermott One Lakeview Drive Apt. LL2A Peekskill, NY 10566 Eloise Vega 1 Cobblestone Road Airmont, NY 10952 Lee Sneden 1 Cobblestone Road Airmont, NY 10952 Linda Petros-Gouin 43 Van Ness Court Maplewood NJ 07040 Katharine M. Swibold 29 Independence St.
Tarrytown, NY 10591 Barbara Hickernell 12 Terrich Court Ossining, NY 10562
Christy Pennoyer 58 Villard Ave Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706 Dani Glaser 14 Westminster Drive Croton on Hudson, NY 10520 Cali Gorevic PO Box 239 Garrison NY 10524 Nancy Kochanowicz 29 Van Wyck St.
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520 Jeff Wanshel 1 Spanish Cove Road Larchmont, New York 10538 Maria Cudequest 84 Grand St Croton, NY 10520 Daniel Shearer 120 Sierra Vista Lane Valley Cottage, NY 10989 Constance Shearer 120 Sierra Vista Lane Valley Cottage, NY 10989 Elizabeth Phillips 27 Grand Avenue Nyack, NY 10960 Andrew Ziegler 30 Park Avenue # 3K Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Annea Lockwood 37 Baron de Hirsch Rd.
POBox 16 Crompond, NY 10517 Maryann Wagner 1675 Amazon Road Mohegan Lake, NY 10547 David Gilbert 103 Grandview Avenue Nanuet, N.Y. 10954-2527 Nancy Gilbert 103 Grandview Avenue Nanuet, N.Y. 10954-2527 Margaret Yonco-Haines 44 Nelson Lane Garrison, NY 10524 Don Devine 3 Rocky Road Chester, NY 10918 Patricia Steinley 134 Lake Rd.
Congers, NY 10920 Dennis Davis 134 Lake Rd.
Congers, NY 10920 Joann Keenan 668 Riverside Drive, Apt. li New York, NY 10031, Maria Elliott 78 Rombout Avenue Beacon, NY 12508
Greg Miller 4 Woods Rd Valley Cottage N.Y. 10989 Jack McLoryd 308 Orchard drive Monroe N.Y. 10950 Merry Breden 308 Orchard drive Monroe N.Y. 10950 Jean Godfrey-June 290 Tweed Blvd Nyack, NY 10960 Estelle & Joseph Burdige 10 Nansen Court Spring Valley, NY 10977 Nick Wheeler 314 W. 142 #8 New York, NY 10030 Sam Leonard 124 Raymond Avenue Vassar College Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-1162 Susanna Styron 156 Piermont Ave.
Nyack, NY 10960 Melanie DeNicola P.O. Box 372 (353 Route 22)
Katonah, NY 10536 Laura Seitz 2 Brook Trail Croton-on-Hudson, NY 1052
Avis Larson 70 Sunset Drive Ossining, NY 10562 Scott Larson 70 Sunset Drive Ossining, NY 10562 Mrs. Judy W. Soffler 8 Termakay Drive New City, NY 10956-6434 Michele Hertz 62 Euclid avenue Hastings on Hudson, NY 10706 Bill Murawski 530 West 50th Street New York, NY 10019 Susan Rukeyser 5 Little Lake Rd.
Ossining, NY 10562 David Weinberger 5 Little Lake Rd.
Ossining, NY 10562 Kenneth L. Okin 570 Scarborough Rd Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 Elaine Robbins 570 Scarborough Rd Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 Dan Cohn Cliffield Rd, Bedford, New York (10506?)
Clare Sherwood Cliffield Rd Bedford, New York 10506 Henry Cohn Clifield Road, Bedford, New York Nancy Binder New York Ave.
Congers, NY 10920 Elizabeth Helbraun 180 Garfield Place Brooklyn, NY 11215 Sidney Goodman 158 Grandview Lane Mahwah, NJ 07430 Carolyn Adessa Mamaroneck, NY Laurie Sholinsky 112 Teatown Road Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Steve Sholinsky 112 Teatown Road Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Jenny Evans 384 Old West Point Road Garrison, NY 10524 Dean Gallea 28 Wildey Street Tarrytown, NY 10591
Carolyn Summers 63 Ferndale Drive Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706 Dan Doniger 53 W. lllth St.
NY; NY 10026 Dorothy S. Dangerfield 112 Sterling Street Beacon, NY 12408 Mary Ann Kirk 100 Thayer Street, #6G, New York, NY 10040 Robert Huttick 100 Thayer Street, #6G, New York, NY 10040 John Huttick 100 Thayer Street, #6G, New York, NY 10040 Batya Halpem 204 Cleveland Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Robbee Fian 484 west 43 St NYC, NY 10036 Carolyn Cunningham 18 Soundview Ave.
Rye, NY 10580 Mary Deangelis PO Box 83 Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522
Arthur K Wing, III Joan F Wing 7 Van Alstine Avenue Suffem, NY 10901 Kathy Isbell 60 West 66th St.
NY, NY 10023 Michael Ruiz 309 1st St Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Caroline Adessa 401 East 16 7th Street Bronx, NY 10456 Lisa North 397 16th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11215 Joyce Bressler 24 First Ave.
Nyack, NY 10960 Harry B. Lichtenstein 2531 Hone Avenue Bronx, New York 10469 Barbara Greenhut 161 Doxbury Lane Suffern, NY 10901 Harold Greenhut 161 Doxbury Lane Suffern, NY 10901 Lisa North 397 16th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Gary Shaw 9 Van Cortlandt Place Croton on hudson, NY 10520 Kay Levinson 21 Division Ave.
So. Nyack, NY 1096
Page 1 of 1
-CHAIRMAN - RE: FUSE Formal Request for GEIS to be Exempted as a Requirement of 10CFR51.6 From:
<Palisadesart@aol.com>
To:
<chairman@nrc.gov>, <RSB 1 @nrc.gov>
Date:
10/24/2007 4:04 PM
Subject:
RE: FUSE Formal Request for GEIS to be Exempted as a Requirement of IOCFR51.6 MILTON B. SHAPIRO SUSAN H. SHAPIRO 21 Perlman Drive, Spring VALLEY, NY 10977 rnbs@ourrocklandoffice.com (845) 371-3721 Fax 10/23/07 Honorable NRC Chairman Dale Klein 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville Pike, Maryland 20852 ATTORNEYS AT LAW (845) 371-2100 (800) 645-8662 RE: FORMAL REQUEST FOR THE GEIS to be EXEMPTED AS A REQUIREMENT requiring ENTERGY to ADDRESS ALL CATEGORY 1 and CATEGORY 2 ISSUES in the EIS.
OF PART 10 CFR 51.6, thereby
Dear Chairman Klein:
Please find attached Friends United for Sustainable Energy's (FUSE) FORMAL REQUEST FOR THE GEIS to be EXEMPTED AS A REQUIREMENT OF PART 10 CFR 51.6, thereby requiring ENTERGY to ADDRESS ALL CATEGORY 1 and CATEGORY 2 ISSUES in the EIS.
Sincerely, Susan Shapiro See what's new at http://www.aol.com file://C:\\temp\\GW}00001.HTM 10/24/2007
.:tem \\GW}00009.TMP Mail Envelope Properties (471FA51E.FF8 : 21: 28664)
Page 1I
Subject:
of 10CFR51.6 Creation Date From:
Created By:
RE: FUSE Formal Request for GEIS to be Exempted as a Requirement Wed, Oct 24, 2007 4:03 PM
<Palisadesart@aol.com>
Palisadesart@aol.com Recipients nrc.gov kpl_po.KPDO RSB1 (Richard Barkley) nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOOI CHAIRMAN Post Office kplpo.KPDO OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 Files MESSAGE TEXT.htm ExemptionFinal 10.23 C.pdf Mime.822 Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
Route nrc.gov nrc.gov Size 954 2426 5791513 7941670 None Standard No None No Standard Date & Time Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:03 PM 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
- 7\\temp\\GW}00009.TMP PPage 2
Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled