ML072700245

G20070671/LTR-07-0644/EDATS: SECY-2007-0377 - Email Sherwood Martinelli Formal Request Under the Guidelines of 10 CFR 2.206 to Have the Environmental Costs of a Terrorist Attack Included in the EIS Scoping for Indian Point

ML072700245
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/21/2007
From:	Martinelli S Friends United for Sustainable Energy (FUSE)
To:	Barkley R, Cameron F, Klein D, Kuo P, Neil Sheehan NRC/Chairman, NRC/SECY
References
EDATS: SECY-2007-0377, G20070671, LTR-07-0644, SECY-2007-0377
Download: ML072700245 (8)

Text

EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM: DUE: 10/31/07 EDO CONTROL: G20070671 DOC DT: 09/21/07 FINAL REPLY:

Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA TO:

Chairman Klein FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO: 07-0644 Dyer, NRR DESC: ROUTING:

2.206 - Indian Point/Environmental Impact Reyes Statement (EIS) Including Terrorist Attack Virgilio Environmental Costs (EDATS: SECY-2007-0377) Kane Ash Ordaz Burns DATE: 09/26/07 Zimmerman, NSIR Cyr, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT: Jones, OGC Mensah, NRR NRR Dyer SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

EDATS Number: SECY-2007-0377 Source: SECY GnrI nfraion Assigned To: NRR OEDO Due Date: 10/31/2007 5:00 PM Other Assignees: SECY Due Date: NONE

Subject:

2.206 - Indian Point/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Including Terrorist Attack Environmental Costs

==

Description:==

CC Routing: NSIR; OGC ADAMS Accession Numbers - Incoming: NONE Response/Package: NONE Othe Ifration Cross Reference Number: G2007067 I, 2.206 Staff Initiated: NO Related Task: Recurring Item: NO File Routing: EDATS Agency Lesson Learned: NO Roadmap Item: NO Action Type: Letter Priority: Medium Sensitivity: None Signature Level: NRR Urgency: NO OEDO Concurrence: NO OCM Concurrence: NO OCA Concurrence: NO Special Instructions:

Originator Name: Sherwood Martinelli Date of Incoming: 9/21/2007 Originating Organization: FUSE USA Document Received by SECY Date: 9/26/2007 Addressee: Chairman Klein Date Response Requested by Originator: NONE Incoming Task Received: E-mail Page 1 of I

OFFICE OF TIHE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET Date Printed:Sep 26, 2007 14:26 PAPER NUMBER: LTR-07-0644 LOGGING DATE: 09/25/2007 ACTION OFFICE: z7-. (

AUTHOR: Sherwood Martinelli AFFILIATION: NY ADDRESSEE: Dale Klein

SUBJECT:

Why EIS for Indian Point should include terorist attack environmental costs ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: Chaiman, Comnrs, OGC LETTER DATE: 09/21/2007 ACKNOWLEDGED No SPECIAL HANDLING: Made publicly available in ADAMS via EDO/DPC NOTES:

FILE LOCATION: ADAMS DATE DUE: DATE SIGNED:

EDO -- G20070671

Page 1 of 2 CHAIRMAN - Why EIS for Indian Point Should Include Terrorist Attack Environmental Costs From: <RoycePenstinger@aol.com>

To: <acer8sac@comcast.net>, <deb@nukebusters.org>, <garyfromvermont@yahoo.com>, <Palisadesart@aol.com>,

<chairman@nrc.gov>, <rsbl@nrc.gov>, <nas@nrc.gov>, <fxc@nrc.gov>, <gclary@lohud.com>,

<indianpointsec@yahoogroups.com>, <indianpointeis@nrc.gov>, <ptk@nrc.gov>, <editor@ ncnlocal.com>,

<crotonshaw@optonline.net>

Date: 09/21/2007 1:00 AM

Subject:

Why EIS for Indian Point Should Include Terrorist Attack Environmental Costs Dear Chairman This is a formal request under the guidelines of 10 CFR 2.206 to have the Environmental Costs of a Terrorist Attack included in the EIS Scoping for the Indian Point Nuclear Reactors. It has wrongfully been the contention of the NRC and the nuclear industry (NEI) that the odds of a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor site are so remote as to be unworthy of consideration in the EIS Scoping process. As the below shown slide exhibits, another agency of the Federal Govemment disagrees with you, and your agency. If necessary, I am prepared to offer proof found on OTHER United States Government sites in support of this Formal Petition that show the Federal Government does feel there exists a real chance that terrorists could mount a attack on a nuclear reactor facility.

Is this slide proof that the NRC is lying to us when they say the risk of a Terrorist Attack on a nuclear reactor is so remote as to be not worth consideration in the License Renewal process under the requirements of NEPA? One can assume, that reasonable minds would say it is proof that the NRC is, and has been lying to the public in a wrongful attempt to protect their licensees, and provide them with and easier pathway to License Renewal Application approval. One thing is clear ...the slide presents absolute governmentally created PROOF that a terrorist attack on a nuclear site, and the resultant Environmental Costs is worthy of INCLUSION in the EIS Scoping for Indian Point. The CDC slide is absolute proof that our Federal Government believes there is a VERY REAL CHANCE "and/orthe potential for such and attack on a nuclear reactor site, and thus the Environmental Costs of such a potential attack scenario MUST BE INCLUDED in the EIS Scoping process for Indian Point units IP2 and IP3.

The question is begged, "If, as the NRC claims, said risk scenario is not worthy of consideration, then why does the Centers For Disease Control consider it at the top of their list of Radiological Terrorist Scenarios in one of their slide presentations?"

In light of this GOVERNMENTAL PROOF, I hereby formally request that the Environmental Costs of a targeted terrorist attack on Indian Point be included in the scoping process for Indian Point. Specifically, I want included in the EIS Scoping process as a part of this 2.206 Petition the environmental cost studies for individual targeted terrorist attacks on individual locations/components at the facility, such as a successful attack on a singular spent fuel pool, or singular reactor, as well as the environmental costs of a targeted terrorist attack on multiple component parts of the facility, such as two spent fuel pools, a spent fuel pool and a reactor, or a successful attack on both reactors, or all three spent fuel pools.

Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA Vice President 914 734 1955 351 Dyckman Street Peekskill, New York 10566 For those outside the NRC receiving this, please send in similar 2.206 petitions supporting our cause, and see that this Formal 2.206 Petition receives WIDE DISTRIBUTION. We want it emailed out, and posted up anywhere and everywhere we can get it. Every aging reactor community deserves to have the Environmental Costs of a terrorist attack included in the Relicensing EIS Scoping Process. Also, look for the formal launch of our website at www.fuseusa.org Potential Health Problems from Exposure to Selected Radionuclides - Hanford Health Information Network - WA State Dept. of He..

file://C:\temp\GW}00001.HTM 09/24/2007

Page 2 of 2 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

file://C:\temp\GW}OOOO1.HTM 09/24/2007

.C\pýtenPGW}OOOO2.TMP Pi.a.ge 1,l Mail Envelope Properties (46F34FF3.FAE : 14: 40878)

Subject:

Why EIS for Indian Point Should Include Terrorist Attack Environmental Costs Creation Date Fri, Sep 21, 2007 1:00 AM From: <RovcePenstinger(&aol.com>

Created By: RoycePenstinger(iaol.com Recipients nrc.gov OWGWPOO4.HQGWDOOI PTK (Pao-Tsin Kuo) nrc.gov TWGWP003.HQGWDOOI IndianPointEIS nrc.gov OWGWPO01 .HQGWDO01 FXC (Francis Cameron) nrc.gov kplpo.KPDO NAS (Neil Sheehan)

RSB I (Richard Barkley) nrc.gov OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 CHAIRMAN optonline.net crotonshaw ncnlocal.com editor yahoogroups.com indianpointsec lohud.com gclary aol.com

cAtýrppýOVVý00602.'TM-P- Pýa66-2!1 Palisadesart yahoo.com garyfromvermont nukebusters.org deb comcast.net acer8sac Post Office Route OWGWPOO4.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov TWGWPO03.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov OWGWPOO1.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov kplpo.KPDO nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov optonline.net ncnlocal.com yahoogroups.com lohud.com aol.com yahoo.com nukebusters.org comcast.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3764 Friday, September 21, 2007 1:00 AM TEXT.htm 5078 Untitled.jpg 150037 Mime.822 216987 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

c:\tem pGW}0002.TMP ._- ... Page 3 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