ML090720655
| ML090720655 | |
| 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: ML090720655 (3) | |
Text
1 IPRenewalCEmails From:
Melissa Myslinski [mmyslins@ramapo.edu]
Sent:
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:15 PM To:
IndianPointEIS Resource
Subject:
Comments on DGEIS Attachments:
DGEIS.doc
Federal Register Notice:
73FR80440 Comment Number:
49 Mail Envelope Properties (20090311191457.BDR76795)
Subject:
Comments on DGEIS Sent Date:
3/11/2009 7:14:57 PM Received Date:
3/11/2009 7:15:03 PM From:
Melissa Myslinski Created By:
mmyslins@ramapo.edu Recipients:
"IndianPointEIS Resource" <IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
msg-1.mail.ramapo.edu Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2
3/11/2009 7:15:03 PM DGEIS.doc 14912 Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
To Whom It May Concern, My name is Melissa Myslinski, I am an Environmental Studies major at Ramapo College of New Jersey. I had the opportunity to review the DGEIS and have some written comments to add on the relicensing of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. The following points are the issues that I feel were left out of the DGEIS.
On page 8-1 it says that, following the shutdown of each unit, decommissioning requirements in the 10 CFR 50.82, Termination of License. Full dismantling of structures and decontamination of the site may not occur for up to 60 years after the plant shut down. This means that the spent fuel rods can sit on the site for the next 60 years and no one would be attending to them, if there was a leak in the containment units. Also, The National Academy of Science concluded that early planning, sufficient resources were dedicated to replacing lost capacity and meeting expected increase demand, the reactors could be retired without major disruption in the grid, and Indian Point can be replaced. Also, under the section of alternatives there were certain alternatives that I feel were left out, and could potentially help in replacing Indian Point. For example, there was no mention of the the New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) in the DGEIS as an additional alternative. The project would bring significant economic, environmental and electric system reliability benefits to the State of New York. The NYRI has the potential of bringing 1200 MW of energy to the area surrounding Indian Point. This transmission line would bring plenty of clean power to the area if Indian Point were shutdown. Another alternative to mention in the DGEIS is the conversion of Landfill gas into energy. Landfill gas could provide 6MW of energy to New York State. Throughout the impact statement there is no mention about the poor population in the area who rely on the fish in the Hudson as a source of food. They are being indirectly exposed to radiation through the fish in the Hudson. Also, the testing of radiation levels are based on 20-30 years old males. The elderly people and young children are improperly represented when there is testing for radiation. A large problem for the Indian Point power plant is the evacuation plan, which needs to be looked at in greater detail. There is no way to evacuate this high populated area living in the area surrounding Indian Point. Finally, the plant does not have enough protection against earthquakes. Being that there has been a large increase in activity along the Ramapo fault line this could cause serious damage to the radioactive units.
Thank you for considering my points in the the relicensing of the Indian Point nuclear rectors unit 2 and 3.
Sincerely, Melissa Myslinski