ML090700175
| ML090700175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/2009 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| NRC/NRR/DLR | |
| References | |
| 73FR80440 | |
| Download: ML090700175 (2) | |
Text
1 IPRenewalCEmails From:
asambrook466 [asambrook466@aol.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:30 PM To:
IndianPointEIS Resource
Subject:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Indian Point.
I wish to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Indian Point.
The Draft EIS fails to evaluate the impact of global warming - including the projected warming of the Hudson River and the projected increase and severity of storms and flooding - upon Indian Point. Two examples: (1) The warming of the Hudson River will exacerbate the impact of the hot plume of water expelled by Indian Point into the river. (2) Increased storms and flooding will exacerbate the corrosion, rusting, etc. of underground piping and other systems at the plant, thereby increasing the likelihood of more accidental radiation releases such as the one discovered in February 2009.
The cost/benefit analysis of the Draft EIS is incomplete and inadequate and constitutes a violation of NEPA. Notably, it relies upon the preposterous conclusion that a major nuclear accident need not be of concern, and even if one occurred, it would not have a significant effect on the environment or public health. This flies in the face of the United States governments (including the NRCs) own former analyses. The NRC must include the postulation of a major radioactive release -- the including the possibility of a meltdown and spent fuel fire - in its cost/benefit analysis.
The Draft EIS is defective in neglecting to evaluate the environmental risks inherent in an aging nuclear facility which has already demonstrably shown signs of deterioration. The NRCs disregard of aging as a separate crucial factor, and its reliance upon aging management as a failsafe for finding all potentially critical problems, not only flies in the face of standard engineering risk analysis, but is belied by the actual experience at the plant.
The failure of the NRC to acknowledge the above represents a deplorable disregard of the NRC mandate to protect human health and the environment and strongly suggests that the Draft EIS is merely a façade for rubberstamping Indian Points relicensing.
Sincerely, Andrea Sambrook Mamaroneck, NY A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
Federal Register Notice:
73FR80440 Comment Number:
34 Mail Envelope Properties (dc2619ab.5e5c.408e.89db.86694e102246)
Subject:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Indian Point.
Sent Date:
3/10/2009 5:30:02 PM Received Date:
3/10/2009 5:31:56 PM From:
asambrook466 Created By:
asambrook466@aol.com Recipients:
"IndianPointEIS Resource" <IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
aol.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2331 3/10/2009 5:31:56 PM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: