ML042320097
| ML042320097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/2004 |
| From: | Abinanti T Westchester County, NY, Board of Legislators |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML050590290 | List: |
| References | |
| Y20040265 | |
| Download: ML042320097 (2) | |
Text
WESTCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF LEGISLATORS 800 MICHAELIAN OFFICE BUILDING 148 MARTINE AVENUE WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601 (914) 995-2821 FAX: (914) 995-3884 THOMAS J. ABINANTI Chairman Legidatoc 12th District Committee on the Environment Special Committee on Solid Waste & Recyclables Member Committee on Budget & Appropriations Committee on Legislation Committee on Health July 15, 2004 Statement to the Nuclear Reslulatorv Commission (NRC)
Hearing on Dry Cask Storage at the lndian Point Site Peekskill, New York Welcome to Westchester County. I would like to thank you for coming to We hope that you will now accept an invitation to the meet with our County Board Westchester to listen to our communitys concerns regarding Indian Point.
of Legislators to discuss our concerns.
Too often those who regulate view the objects of their regulation and the communities in which they are located as objects and statistics. By coming here this evening, youve seen the people, how they live and how they work. Youve seen firsthand what you could never have seen by just reading reports. Youve seen the narrow one-lane Route 9 t k t serves evacuation route for so many who live and work around Indian Point. Youve seen the traffic congestion in off-hours and the dangerous roads that lead across Bear Mountain Bridge. Youve seen that the lines on the map really are not lots of roads, but small country lanes leading to nowhere.
lanes of traffic and serves as the main So now you understand why to our community safety is the first priority and why there must be zero tolerance for error. Even a false alarm at IP could create panic, chaos and numerous injuries and deaths.
So, we ask that you take our concerns about the proposed dry cask storage system very seriously. In todays environment, a minor mishap with a cask could cause many caskets!
Thank you.
NRC Hearing - Dry Cusk Storage at Indian Poin f - Peekskill, NY - Julv 15.2004 Additional Questions/Comments from Westchester County Legislator Tom Abinanti:
- 1) Even if Yucca Mountain were to open in 2015, the waste shipments from Indian Point to Yucca Mountain would take place over the course of three decades. This means that spent fuel will remain onsite at Indian Point until the late 203Os/early 2040s. In the interim, shouldnt the emphasis be on fortifying both the wet (i.e. pools) and dry (Le. casks) spent fuel storage systems? How can this best be accomplished?
Shouldnt a robust containment structure be constructed over the storage pools?
Shouldnt the dry casks, which are proposed to be stored on an open concrete pad, be concealed from line-of-sight and an attack from the air? Why are the following measures not being considered - soil berms, aboveground bunker system, beamhenge?
- 2) How much additional spent he1 waste would be produced if Indian Point were re-licensed for an additional 20 years of operation? Where would that waste be stored? Isnt it true that Yucca Mountain, if it were to open, has limited capacity and wouldnt even be able to accept the spent fuel waste from Indian Point produced during its initial 40-year licensing period?
- 3) Industry and government officials have spoken out about manufacturing and design flaws associated with Holtecs Hi-Storm 100 casks. There is an official within the NRC who has raised concerns about Holtec. The former Governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt, who is now head of the EPA, called on the NRC last summer to investigate the concerns raised about Holtecs quality assurance problems. Due to concerns over the Holtec cask, Nuclear Management Company (NMC) selected a different cask manufacturer for the plants NMC manages. What is being done to address the numerous concerns raised about the quality assurance of Holtecs dry casks?
- 4) Why did Entergy select the Holtec cask over other models? Isnt the Hi-Storm 100 cask one of the least expensive models available today? Entergy and Holtec are part of a consortium, which is hoping to construct a temporary storage site in Utah. Is this the reason why Entergy has a contract with Holtec to use the companys casks at each of Entergys nuclear power plant sites? Is Holtec a good fit for Indian Point? Wont Entergy have to make modifications to the spent fuel pool building in order for the casks, when in the vertical position, to be moved back out?
5 ) Which site-specific characterktics has Entergy taken into consideration with respect to the impact that the construction of the dry cask storage system will have on the environment?
- 6) Entergy must employ structural security measures - such as soil berms, beamhenge (steel cable system), aboveground bunkers, and containment buildings - to protect the dry casks. Entergys proposal involves storing the casks on an open concrete storage pad with no overhead protection!
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!! WHY NOT GIFT WRAP THEM AS WELL!! Soil berms, above-ground bunkers and containment buildings can be used to shield the casks from line-of-sight so that the casks are not as vulnerable to acts of terrorism involving hand-held weaponry (Le. anti-tank missiles) or aircraft. Entergy must construct a robust, containment structure over the irradiated fuel pools. The buildings that currently house each irradiated fuel pool at Indian Point do not serve as containment; nor are they fortified structures capable of repelling a terrorist attack.
- 7) I respecthlly request the NRC NOT TO RELICENSE IP 2 & 3, because the site is located in such a densely populated area (an NRC regulation for new plantdlicenses).
- 8) With regards to the dry cask system Entergy has chosen - their justification is that it is an WRC-approved companyhystem. The problem is that the NRC-approved list of companies/systems is all pre 9/11!! That is unreasonable and irresponsible!! That means that not one of those systems was designed with even the thought of repelling a terrorist attack! Now that there is such a system available, what possible reason could you have m t o require an upgraded system (being that Entergy wont do the right thing if they are not federally mandated to do so)?
PLEASE RESPOND TO ME IN WRITING AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.