ML090771342
| ML090771342 | |
| 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: ML090771342 (3) | |
Text
IPRenewalCEmails From: terrykardos@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:31 PM To: IndianPointEIS Resource
Subject:
Comments on relicensing Indian Point Nuclear Power Units 2 and 3 To the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
As a concerned citizen, a parent, a local resident, and an environmental educator I strongly oppose the relicensing of Indian Point Units 2 and 3. I did attend the public comment session held at the Colonial Terrace on February 12, 2009. I hold my opinion for several reasons.
I do not understand how the NRC does not take into account the evacuation plan in the environmental review, especially since the population in the surrounding area has increased tremendously in the past 40 years. Such a nuclear power plant could not be licensed in its present location if it were newly proposed. I live within the 10 mile radius of Indian Point, and although I have studied every Westchester County evacuation plan that has come out, I find them very confusing.
N.Y. State has concluded that the evacuation plan is unworkable, and any thinking person agrees.
The traffic jams would result in gridlock. Moreover, parents worried about their children in school may ignore the plan and try to go directly to the schools to pick up their children. The evacuation plan also does not consider wind direction and strength that could push radiation in a particular direction. It would seem to make more sense that any evacuation should be away from the direction any radiation is heading. However, any plan is likely to result in chaos and massive traffic jams that will prevent timely, organized evacuation.
I believe that the Indian Point nuclear facility poses a health risk to humans. The above ground storage of spent nuclear fuel is not as safe as underground storage. The NRC has not considered Indian Point's location on the Ramapo Fault, which was recently active. While the NRC review concludes that there is no significant public health risk, data recently released by the N.Y. State Health Department show that thyroid cancer rates in the four counties closest to Indian Point are nearly double the U.S. average, and that childhood cancer is also above the national rate. A study by the Mother's Milk Project shows that of 30 samples from breastfeeding human mothers and goats within 50 miles of Indian Point, almost all of them show levels of strontium-90. Moreover, the closer to Indian Point the samples were taken, the higher the strontium-90 levels were. Furthermore, Indian Point is still vulnerable to terrorist attack, the consequences of which could be devastating.
I worry about the aging infrastructure and the leaks that have been occurring for a number of years. I am appalled that the NRC has exempted the facility from passing a one-hour fire rating, but instead has granted it a 24 minute fire rating. I believe that the NRC's assessment and guidelines are flawed:
they are based on the impact on 20-30 year old white males. However, women are 52% more likely to get cancer than men from the same dose, and children and fetuses are even more vulnerable.
Indian Point is also detrimental to wildlife. The current method of cooling the water results in entrainment and impingement of fish and other creatures of the Hudson River. In the NRC's own review of environmental issues, the impacts of entrainment, heat shock, and negative effects on threatened and endangered species range from small to large. If admitted environmental impacts can be large, I do not see how the NRC can just ignore these. No relicensing should be permitted unless closed cycle cooling is implemented.
1
I am particularly concerned about the negative environmental impacts on the Hudson River ecosystem in light of the climate crisis. Negative effects from global warming are already manifest, and much faster than scientists had predicted. Adverse impacts from Indian Point on various species, especially threatened and endangered ones, are likely to be magnified by the climate crisis.
We should be doing everything possible to minimize all environmental impacts we can, as a precaution against climatic impacts that we may not be able to ameliorate.
At the public hearing, many spoke about what a good neighbor Entergy has been. Representatives from groups in New York City spoke passionately about the problems from the burning of fossil fuels in or near their neighborhoods. Others spoke about the need for keeping the cost of energy as low as possible. I do not believe that the solution to our energy problems should be solved by putting minority and poor neighborhoods at greater risk from additional fossil fuel-burning plants. However, being a good neighbor, and the cost of electricity are not relevant issues in an environmental review.
For all of the reasons above, I feel that the scope and conclusions of the NRC's environmental review are inadequate and flawed; the negative impacts to the environment and to human health, along with various other risks, should lead the NRC to conclude against relicensing Indian Point. Yes, the region needs electricity, but adequate power supply should depend on conservation and truly sustainable production of power, such as solar, wind, and tidal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Theresa Kardos 26 Montrose Station Rd.
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567 Job Hunting? Start with the companies that posted job openings this week.
2
Federal Register Notice: 73FR80440 Comment Number: 80 Mail Envelope Properties (8CB754E0AB041F4-AEC-CA6)
Subject:
Comments on relicensing Indian Point Nuclear Power Units 2 and 3 Sent Date: 3/17/2009 3:31:02 PM Received Date: 3/17/2009 3:31:49 PM From: terrykardos@aol.com Created By: terrykardos@aol.com Recipients:
"IndianPointEIS Resource" <IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: webmail-mh30.sysops.aol.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5367 3/17/2009 3:31:49 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: