ML073100314
| ML073100314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/2007 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| 72FR45075 | |
| Download: ML073100314 (4) | |
Text
From: "Sharon Kennedy-Nolle" <sknolle2002@yahoo.com>
To: <IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov>
Date: 10/12/2007 5:02:35 PM
Subject:
Fw: Indian Point License Renewal Comments
Original Message -----
From: Sharon Kennedy-Nolle To: PointEIS@NRC.GOV Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject:
Fw: Indian Point License Renewal Comments
Original Message -----
From: Sharon Kennedy-Nolle To: eis@nrc.gov Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject:
Indian Point License Renewal Comments We are writing to express our strong disapproval of the proposed license renewal on the Indian Point Power plant. Apart from the already main well-known arguments regarding the plant's age, history of leakage problems, questionable storage waste facilities, and danger posed in such a dense exurban area, the renewal could be denied on the basis of safety alone during an emergency.
As commuting residents of the area (Bedford), we experience the congested traffic patterns on Westchester roads daily -- these are chronic conditions which did not exist when the plant was originally licensed some forty years ago. In the event of an emergency, how could Entergy's safety and evacuation be viably executed? The logistics of traffic volume, outdated narrow roads, and population density on even "normal days" prohibit seriously entertaining even the thought that safety and communication efforts could be coordinated and a reasonable exodus could occur. The resultant traffic jams caused by advertised, mundane events as well as by traffic accidents render their plans ludicrous. One has to ask: does a disaster have to happen before the disinterested thinking of hindsight can prevail?
Why does the established voice of resident protest against Indian Point, the voice of those who would be most affected by your decision consistently take a backseat to corporate interest? As the nuclear age has evolved, isn't it time to question the licensing criteria of the NRC as potentially outmoded? Given that that in your history a renewal license has never been denied, the question has import. Indeed, given the documented biases --both personal and political-- that have informed the decisions of former Atomic Energy Commisioners since the
1940s, such skepticism is warranted. The exigency of Indian Point offers an opportunity to reverse the precedence of misguided thinking and act in a politically courageous manner, as well as protect American lives.
Sincerely, Sharon and Chris Nolle Bedford, New York
Federal Register Notice: 72FR45075 Comment Number: 18 Mail Envelope Properties (47304C7B.HQGWDO01.OWGWPO04.200.200000D.1.16EC12.1)
Subject:
Fw: Indian Point License Renewal Comments Creation Date: 10/12/2007 5:02:35 PM From: "Sharon Kennedy-Nolle" <sknolle2002@yahoo.com>
Created By: sknolle2002@yahoo.com Recipients
<IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov>
Post Office Route OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2380 10/12/2007 5:02:35 PM TEXT.htm 3956 11/6/2007 11:14:03 AM Mime.822 8813 11/6/2007 11:14:03 AM Options Priority: High Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard
Page 1 of 1
Original Message -----
From: Sharon Kennedy-Nolle To: PointEIS@NRC.GOV Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject:
Fw: Indian Point License Renewal Comments
Original Message -----
From: Sharon Kennedy-Nolle To: eis@nrc.gov Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject:
Indian Point License Renewal Comments We are writing to express our strong disapproval of the proposed license renewal on the Indian Point Power plant. Apart from the already main well-known arguments regarding the plant's age, history of leakage problems, questionable storage waste facilities, and danger posed in such a dense exurban area, the renewal could be denied on the basis of safety alone during an emergency.
As commuting residents of the area (Bedford), we experience the congested traffic patterns on Westchester roads daily -- these are chronic conditions which did not exist when the plant was originally licensed some forty years ago. In the event of an emergency, how could Entergy's safety and evacuation be viably executed? The logistics of traffic volume, outdated narrow roads, and population density on even "normal days" prohibit seriously entertaining even the thought that safety and communication efforts could be coordinated and a reasonable exodus could occur. The resultant traffic jams caused by advertised, mundane events as well as by traffic accidents render their plans ludicrous. One has to ask: does a disaster have to happen before the disinterested thinking of hindsight can prevail?
Why does the established voice of resident protest against Indian Point, the voice of those who would be most affected by your decision consistently take a backseat to corporate interest? As the nuclear age has evolved, isn't it time to question the licensing criteria of the NRC as potentially outmoded? Given that that in your history a renewal license has never been denied, the question has import. Indeed, given the documented biases --both personal and political-- that have informed the decisions of former Atomic Energy Commisioners since the 1940s, such skepticism is warranted. The exigency of Indian Point offers an opportunity to reverse the precedence of misguided thinking and act in a politically courageous manner, as well as protect American lives.
Sincerely, Sharon and Chris Nolle Bedford, New York file://C:\EMailCapture\IndianPointLRScoping\18\attch1.htm 11/6/2007