ML090771340

Comment (78) E-mail Regarding Iplr Dseis

ML090771340
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/17/2009
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	Division of License Renewal
NRC/NRR/DLR
References
73FR80440
Download: ML090771340 (3)

Text

IPRenewalCEmails From: Peter D. Wolf [seawolf@cloud9.net]

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:12 PM To: IndianPointEIS Resource

Subject:

Comments re Environmental Impact State for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 attached Attachments: IPEIScommentrrr.doc 1

Federal Register Notice: 73FR80440 Comment Number: 78 Mail Envelope Properties (013201c9a744$f8b388a0$ea1a99e0$)

Subject:

Comments re Environmental Impact State for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 attached Sent Date: 3/17/2009 5:11:42 PM Received Date: 3/17/2009 5:11:47 PM From: Peter D. Wolf Created By: seawolf@cloud9.net Recipients:

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

Tracking Status: None Post Office: net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 8 3/17/2009 5:11:47 PM IPEIScommentrrr.doc 30272 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

25 Main Street - Suite B Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706 March 17, 2009 VIA OVERNIGHT COURIER and E-MAIL Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike - Room T-6D559 Rockville, MD 20852 Attn: Chairman Dale E. Klein re: Environmental Impact Statement: License Renewal Application: DPR-26 & DPR-64 Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 - Buchanan, NY (owned by Entergy)

Dear Mr. Klein:

These comments are in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared as part of the re-licensing process regarding the application by Entergy for a 20 year extension to continue operating Indian Point Units 2 & 3.

It appears that the full import of some critical environmental factors is not properly considered in the EIS, and should be a vital part of the NRCs review process; the factors of particular concern include, but are not limited to:

• Close proximity to a densely populated area (24 miles north of New York City),

• Location on a fault line, which has shown recent earthquake activity,

• Potentially Attractive Target to Terrorists,

• Manner in which Nuclear Waste is stored above ground,

• Continued Operation continuing to kill aquatic species in the Hudson River,

• History of Leaks & Shutdowns about 5 times higher than the national average,

• Unknown risks attendant with additional 20 years operation for this Facility,

• No credible study of the effects of different types of accidents at Indian Point on surrounding areas, especially considering the history of other nuclear accidents If the NRC ignores does not properly consider the above environmental factors, then it would seem that it cannot fulfill its self-stated vision of Excellence in regulating the safe and secure management of radioactive materials for the public good.

I strongly urge the NRC fully consider the environmental factors, which were and which should have been discussed in the EIS, in determining whether to re-license the two Indian Point units.

Sincerely Yours, Peter D. Wolf