ML090720659

Comment (51) E-mail Regarding Iplr Dseis

ML090720659
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: ML090720659 (4)

Text

IPRenewalCEmails From: krace@ramapo.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:01 PM To: IndianPointEIS Resource

Subject:

EIS Attachments: DEIS%20letter%20final[1].doc kr.doc Attached are my thoughts on what needs to be looked further into in the EIS.

1

Federal Register Notice: 73FR80440 Comment Number: 51 Mail Envelope Properties (20090311200108.BDR78468)

Subject:

EIS Sent Date: 3/11/2009 8:01:08 PM Received Date: 3/11/2009 8:01:13 PM From: krace@ramapo.edu Created By: krace@ramapo.edu Recipients:

"IndianPointEIS Resource" <IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: msg-1.mail.ramapo.edu Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 78 3/11/2009 8:01:13 PM DEIS%20letter%20final[1].doc kr.doc 26688 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Drew Stuyvenberg Project Manager U.S. Regulatory Commission andrew.stuyvenberg@nrc.gov Re: Application for license renewal at Indian Point I am a student at Ramapo College of New Jersey in the environmental program and I have been evaluating the DEIS for the re-licensing of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. When reviewing the Environmental Justice sections in the DEIS I noticed in section 3.1.10. Environmental JusticeRefurbishment it is stated Since IP2 and IP3 are located in a high-population area, the small, short duration change in employment associated with the potential replacement activities would likely have no noticeable effect on minority and/or low-income populations in the region. Because of the short duration of the replacement activity for each units reactor vessel head and CRDMs, and based on the analysis of impacts for the other resource areas discussed in Section 3.1, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations in the immediate vicinity of IP2 and IP3. According to the United States EPA Office of Environmental Justice defines EJ as follows:

"Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work."

From my understanding the EIS only addresses the issues of impacts on minority and low-income populations in the immediate vicinity of IP2 and IP3. When defined EJ also covers protection from health hazards for the right to live, work and learn in a safe healthy environment. According to a current study in Human Breast milk and goat milk near Indian Point shows elevated levels of Strontium-90 which is a fission product of nuclear testing. Strontium-90 is known to cause bone cancer, leukemia and other diseases of the immune system. This product is associated with nuclear power sources as a decay product and is known to be produced naturally in minute doses and does not occur in large amounts in nature.

I feel further testing needs to be done in the area of IP2 and IP3 to determine the effects of the Strontium-90 on human and animal health. The Strontium can be carried by the river and disbursed further away from the site so all areas that can come in contact should be studied to determine if the area is in fact a safe and healthy place to live, work and learn.

Thank You, Kira Race