Editorial was an attack on NRC

To the Editor:

Page A6 of the Friday, Aug. 3, 2012, issue of the Souderton Independent has an editorial “Nuclear plant study should include population growth.” I have several contentions with not only the writer but also the content. Who is the brave soul who wrote this piece of misinformation?

I have seen this piece of misrepresentation in other venues. It was published in the Daily Local News, Chester on July 25, 2012. It is essentially the same article. Still another version was printed at still a different venue, “Hudson County Journal News,” in regard to the Indian Point Nuclear Power Station.

Someone or some organization has began this deliberate attack on the nuclear industry and, by implication, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as the owners/operators of nuclear plants.

, GR nRW UHFDOO ZKHUH , fiUVW saw the article. It could have been on any of the email news reporting organizations. What is particularly distressing about the article in the Souderton Independent is that it was represented as an “editorial.”

The “editorial” quotes SuEOLF fiJuUHV OLNH 6Hn. Casey and Ralph Miller with their motherhood plaints. I suspect that the articles that were printed in the other YHnuHV TuRWHG SuEOLF RIficials also.

In regard to the new surveys that were espoused in the various venues, how often must they be taken to satisfy the complainers. Does a new survey have to be done every week or every month or every year? All sorts of projections are made every day on a variety of topics.

One additional comment on the surveys. When the utility applies for a license to build a nuclear plant, a series of hearings are held by the NRC as to the suitability of the plant site and other relevant factors. This not only includes expected population growth but also many other environmental issues. When the initial hearings are completed and a license to build is granted, the deliberations are published and are held in NRC reading rooms in the plant vicinity as well as at NRC headquarters and is called a PSAR, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Upon completion of the plant construction and prior to the granting of a license to operate, additional hearings are held and the plant design data and the contentions of intervenors are addressed. The proceedings are published in a FSAR, Final Safety Analysis Report, which had been available at the public reading rooms and at NRC headquarters.

In the aftermath of 9/11, these documents are no longer available and I can speak from personal experience that it is the the case.

The article is grossly insulting to the men and women who serve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has a mandate to ensure that nuclear plant operation is safe. Who appointed the writer or writers of these articles to be the guardians of public safety? These self-appointed guardians need to get out of their soft padded chairs and DLU FRnGLWLRnHG RIfiFHV DnG step outside and get educated.

Is everyone who works at Limerick and who resides within the monitoring zone around each nuclear plant or lives in this vague area where the populace is at risk so stupid that they are clueless regarding their safety?

These pseudo Cassandras, who wrote the articles, are so out of touch with the real perils in our world.

The article is insulting to the men and women who are employed at Limerick and must be, according to the article, so oblivious to their peril.

I am a retired mechanical engineer who was employed for over 40 years in a sector of the electric power industry. George J. Silvestri Jr.

Souderton