ML090720652
| ML090720652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/2009 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| NRC/NRR/DLR | |
| References | |
| 73FR80440 | |
| Download: ML090720652 (4) | |
Text
1 IPRenewalCEmails From:
kkopshaw@ramapo.edu Sent:
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:47 PM To:
IndianPointEIS Resource
Subject:
Indian Point DSEIS comments Attachments:
written comments to nrc.doc Attached is my thoughts on the DSEIS of Indian Point nuclear power plant.
Kaitlin Kopshaw
Federal Register Notice:
73FR80440 Comment Number:
48 Mail Envelope Properties (20090311184713.BDR75508)
Subject:
Indian Point DSEIS comments Sent Date:
3/11/2009 6:47:13 PM Received Date:
3/11/2009 6:47:18 PM From:
kkopshaw@ramapo.edu Created By:
kkopshaw@ramapo.edu Recipients:
"IndianPointEIS Resource" <IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
msg-1.mail.ramapo.edu Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 94 3/11/2009 6:47:18 PM written comments to nrc.doc 31296 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
To Mr. Andrew Stuyvenberg Project Manager U.S. Regulatory Commission Re: Indian Point As someone who lives, works, and goes to school within the 50 miles radius of the Indian Point Power Plant, I was very interested in reading the DSEIS. Personally, I am against the idea of nuclear power, especially in the area where Indian Point is located. It seems irresponsible to have a nuclear power plant located so close to a major city that holds such a large portion of the population. In the event of any kind of disaster, natural or otherwise, millions of lives would be destroyed. However, my personal opinions are being put aside to address several concerns that I have about issues that were not dealt with or were insufficiently explored in the DSEIS.
Again, I have several issues to raise regarding the location of Indian Point. The DSEIS does not mention the fact that Indian Point rests on two different fault lines. As evidenced by the recent earthquakes in northern New Jersey, this could be a very real concern. The plant has no preparation or safety measures in place to deal with such a natural disaster. Also, the location of plant leads to a very poor evacuation plan. The DSEIS does not discuss how there are very few ways out of the immediate area surrounding the plant, and that those ways are narrow, on a mountain, and over bridges. There is no doubt that if there was a need to evacuate the area, people would be trapped. The roads surrounding the plant were not designed for a massive exodus and an evacuation would quickly overwhelm their ability to function.
Another issue is regarding the cooling system, fish populations, and the effect Indian Point has on the Hudson River. As a nuclear power plant, especially one that was built many decades ago, Indian Point should be using the best available technology. This includes using cooling towers, rather than the current system of using water from the Hudson River. The DSEIS does not adequately discuss the negative effects that taking water from the Hudson has, nor what the implementation of cooling towers would mean to the river. The amount of water taken from the Hudson is significant, and it is returned with a several degree difference. What effect does returning warmer water in the summer and in the winter have on the river? Does this affect the fish populations? This is a major issue that is absent in the DSEIS. Also regarding the current cooling system, Indian Point installed Ristroph screens in 1990, yet no studies were done regarding their effectiveness regarding the impingement and entrainment of fish. This is an oversight that needs to be addressed. It has been acknowledged and proven that the populations of fish species in the Hudson River have been on the decline. Yet the DSEIS does not adequately discuss this issue and the impact that Indian Point is having on the populations. It is also known that an endangered fish species, the Short-Nosed Sturgeon, lives in the river surrounding Indian Point. As an endangered species that is known to be in the area and that also has a history of being entrained and impinged at Indian Point, the effect that the plant has on its population should be intensely studied. However, no recent studies were done as to the effect the plant has on the Sturgeon. How is this acceptable? There should be research done as to how many fish are dying due to the plant.
There is also a possibility that there are three endangered terrestrial species in the area surrounding Indian Plant. The DSEIS confirms that the Indiana Bat could use the forested area to the north of the plant as a summer habitat. Yet no studies were done to determine if they are actually in the area. As an endangered species, assuming they are not present is not acceptable.
This is the same situation with the Bog Turtle and the New England Cottontail. As long as there is a possibility they are there, they cannot just be dismissed so cavalierly.
Relating to the topic of environmental justice, the DSEIS does not sufficiently discuss fishing from the Hudson River. There are subsistence fishermen in the area, who need the fish to survive. Yet the effects from regularly eating contaminated fish are not explored. The effects are not immediately life endangering, so people are going to continue to fish. However, the toxins do build up over time and these issues regarding subsistence fishermen were not discussed. Also, do people in the area hunt? If so, are they warned about the leakage from the spent fuel rods?
Whether or not they are adequately warned, people would still probably hunt and eat contaminated animals. While the leakage may not directly affect people since they do not drink water from the Hudson, they do eat animals that drink contaminated water. Also, Strontium 90 has been found in the area due to leakage from Indian Point. This issue, and the effects that it has on people and wildlife, were not discussed. This is a major issue that really needs to be addressed. It can have major health impacts on the local population, and it was not even mentioned. This needs to be rectified immediately.
Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts regarding the Indian Point DSEIS and its shortcomings. I hope that further research will be conducted and the findings will sufficiently answer questions that I, and others, have with the nuclear power plant.
Sincerely, Kaitlin Kopshaw