ML121370216

Letter to Michele G. Evans Community Actions Re Indian Point

ML121370216
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point, Pilgrim
Issue date:	04/23/2012
From:	Holt J - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Public Affairs
Pickett D, NRR/DORLLPL1-1, 415-1364
Shared Package
ml121370155	List: ML121370216 ML121370231
References
Download: ML121370216 (1)

Text

From: Joan Holt [capejoanholt@comcast.net]

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:03 PM To: OPA Resource

Subject:

Letter to Michele G. Evans, Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Joan Holt (capejoanholt@comcast.net) on Monday, April 23, 2012 at 14:03:09 comments: April 23, 2012 Michele G. Evans Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Dear Ms. Evans:

I receive NRC notices about the Indian Point and the Pilgrim nuclear plants. I used to live near Indian Point and now live near Pilgrim.

I was interested to read your letter to the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, NY, regarding a "resolution passed by the Greenburgh Town Board [that] called on the NRC to reject the applications [for Indian Point operating license renewals] and order permanent plant shutdowns when the original 40-year licenses expire." Your letter to Mr. Feiner is an iteration of the various activities the NRC does and does not engage in when considering operating license renewals. It is, however, totally unresponsive to the resolution of the Greenburgh Town Board. It fails to state that it will be totally disregarding the wishes of the Greenburgh Town Board--elected, I presume, by the residents of Greenburgh to represent and act in their interest.

This concerns me because tomorrow night, at the Annual Town Meeting of my current residence, Truro, Massachusetts, the citizens of Truro will be voting on a resolution opposing the renewal of the Pilgrim operating license, due to expire just over a month from now.

Our neighboring town, Provincetown, MA, has already passed a similar resolution and I expect that our town and then a series of other towns in our region, will be passing resolutions opposing Pilgrim's license renewal. Your response to the Town of Greenburgh, NY, indicates that the response any of these resolutions will receive from your agency is a similar letter full of boilerplate NRC patter.

I was once an active participant in ASLB licensing proceedings arising from a 1979 petition filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists seeking suspension of the Indian Point operating licenses.

Your letter to Greenburgh fills me with a sense of déjà vu. I have read such letters many times before. There seems to be no way for ordinary people in ordinary towns near nuclear reactors to penetrate the culture and practices of the NRC in a way that can have any effect.

You at the NRC are as sanguine since the accident at the Fukushima Daichi reactors as you were before that catastrophe and as you have always been. It's all business as usual: not to worry; nothing to endanger the public or the environment will happen here. "Should the NRC become aware at any time of information calling into question the continued safe operation of any nuclear power plant...the NRC will take appropriate actions, up to and including ordering a plant shutdown..." What more information calling into question the safe operation of any nuclear power plant do you need than the ongoing catastrophe at Fukushima? Will you still be reassuring us if Fukushima Unit 4 Fukushima plant collapses bringing down its spent fuel pool, or if a threatened total loss of coolant in that pool causes a radioactive release larger than anything experienced thus far?

Indian Point or Pilgrim may or may not experience an earthquake, a tsunami, an extended loss of off-site power, or another calamity.

But nobody can say with certainty that an unforeseen, unpredicted event or series of events could not result in a worst case scenario at these or at any other nuclear plant. Unlikely does not mean impossible! And should the unlikely occur, you cannot say that the consequences would be tolerable. I would like a reply from you that does not repeat statements such as "It is unlikely that significant radiological consequences would result from a wide range of terrorist attacks, including one from a large commercial aircraft" or "the continued operation of nuclear power plants does not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety" or "a radiological emergency would likely result from a slowly evolving event that would allow time to implement mitigating actions and offsite emergency plans" or "the agency will take all appropriate actions necessary to ensure the continuing safety of the American public."

I am fully aware that all the things you have listed as post-Fukushima requirements will not be fulfilled within the prescribed time-periods. NRC requirements are typically not fulfilled on time--

and sometimes never. NRC will grant repeated time extensions and exemptions, and permit "compensating measures"--all the while continuing to allow non-complying reactors to operate "in the interim." (You see, I know the jargon.)

What I would like is a straightforward reply, a simple answer to a simple question: Is there any

way that a community no longer wishing to take the risk of a low-probability, high-consequence radiological accident at its doorstep can act to rid itself of this risk? I ask for a yes or no answer and concrete guidance from you, not a letter such as the one you have sent to Greenburgh, NY.

I assume that I do not have to be an official of any sort or a participant in an NRC proceeding to write to you and to receive a reply from you. As a taxpayer, I am entitled to your attention.

Yours truly, Joan Holt capejoanholt@comcast.net PO Box 1087 Truro, MA 02666 organization: private citizen address1: PO Box 1087 address2:

city: Truro state: MA zip: 02666 country: US phone: 508-349-2120

---