ML090780770

Comment (86) E-mail Regarding Iplr Dseis

ML090780770
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/18/2009
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	Division of License Renewal
NRC/NRR/DLR
References
73FR80440
Download: ML090780770 (31)

Text

1 IPRenewalCEmails From:

Mannajo Greene [mannajo@clearwater.org]

Sent:

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:14 PM To:

IndianPointEIS Resource Cc:

Andrew Stuyvenberg; Ross Gould

Subject:

Clearwater's Comments on DSEIS for Indian Point 2 and 3 Attachments:

Clearwater_Comments_IP_DSEIS_3.18.09 final.pdf Attached please find:

HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC.S WRITTEN COMMENTS ON the Supplement 38 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3, issued by the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION on December 22, 2008 (DRAFT NUREG-1437, SUPPLEMENT 38 VIII DECEMBER 2008)

Please acknowledge receipt.

Thank you kindly, Manna Jo Greene Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director Hudson River Sloop Clearwater 112 Market St.

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 845 454-7673 x 113

Federal Register Notice:

73FR80440 Comment Number:

86 Mail Envelope Properties (e95a666b0903181914u531e2218tb420505ffd16d9e8)

Subject:

Clearwater's Comments on DSEIS for Indian Point 2 and 3 Sent Date:

3/18/2009 10:14:11 PM Received Date:

3/18/2009 10:14:24 PM From:

Mannajo Greene Created By:

mannajo@clearwater.org Recipients:

"Andrew Stuyvenberg" <Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Ross Gould" <rgouldesq@gmail.com>

Tracking Status: None "IndianPointEIS Resource" <IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 585 3/18/2009 10:14:24 PM Clearwater_Comments_IP_DSEIS_3.18.09 final.pdf 815766 Options Priority:

Standard Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

HUDSON RIVER SLOOP CLEARWATER, INC.S WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENT 38 TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS, REGARDING INDIAN POINT GENERATING UNITS 2 AND 3, ISSUED BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 22, 2008 (DRAFT NUREG-1437, SUPPLEMENT 38 VIII DECEMBER 2008)

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. (Clearwater) submits these written comments on the Supplement 38 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as DSEIS) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff on December 22, 2008 to supplement the oral testimony of its Environmental Director, Manna Jo Greene given at the public comments hearing on February 13, 2009.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted a license renewal application on April 30, 2007, to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") requesting a 20-year extension of the existing licenses for Units 2 and 3 at the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Facility (Indian Point). The license renewal application was submitted pursuant to the federal Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations. Among other requirements of these provisions, the NRC must conduct an environmental review and consider the adverse environmental impacts of the renewal, with public review and comment.

On December 22, 2008 the NRC Staff issued Supplement 38 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as DSEIS) issued by the NRC Staff as required by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and NRC rules. The DSEIS is deficient under the requirements of NEPA, the facts of this proceeding, and the unique location of Indian Point, which requires that the site-specific environmental statement include accurate and complete assessments of the impacts of renewal of the Indian Point licenses including the following:

impacts: the impacts to of radiological releases on drinking water sources and on mothers milk; the socioeconomic factors in Rockland County related to cooling systems, other cooling system issues; impacts upon the environmental justice, disabled and institutionalized populations in the region; impacts on drinking water quality and the aquatic ecology of the Hudson River; impacts of the complete uranium fuel cycle; and the feasibility and impacts of the no action alternatives including the use of renewable sources of energy generation, and the implementation of conservation and energy efficiency measures.

I.

NEPA Standards for NRCs Review of License Renewal Applications The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") places upon an agency the obligation to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action and "ensures that the agency will inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process." Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res Def.

Counsel, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). NEPA mandates that federal agencies involved in

2 activities that may have a significant impact on the environment must complete a detailed statement of the environmental impacts and project alternatives. NEPA requires that federal agencies take a "hard look" at the environmental impacts of proposed actions, specifically:

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved if the proposed action should be implemented.

42 U.S.C. § 4332. Federal agencies must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for "all major Federal actions significantly affecting the... environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

"NEPA was created to ensure that agencies will base decisions on detailed information regarding significant environmental impacts and that information will be available to a wide variety of concerned public and private actors." Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Federal Aviation Administration, 161 F.3d 569, 575 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoted in Mississippi River Basin Alliance v.

Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 2000)). Thus, the fundamental goal of a NEPA evaluation is to require the responsible government agency to undertake a careful and thorough analysis of the need for the project and its impacts before proceeding. Agencies must consider environmentally significant aspects of a proposed action, let the public know that the agency's decision-making process includes environmental concerns, and decide whether the public benefits of the project outweigh the environmental costs. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 971,76 L. Ed. 2d 437, 103 S. Ct. 2246 (1983); Utahns For Better Transportation v. United States Dept. of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152, 1162 (10th Cir.

2002); Illinois Commerce Com. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 84.8 F.2d 1246, 1259 (D.C. Cir.

1988).

The requirements of NEPA are mandatory and apply to the NRC. Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm.s, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971)(holding that NEPA applies to NRC's predecessor). Both Entergy and the NRC must comply with NEPA by evaluating the environmental impacts of license renewal and by weighing the costs and benefits of mitigating or avoiding such impacts. 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(c). The NRC must prepare an environmental impact statement before making its decision on Entergy's renewal application. See 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(d).

The NRC has created a generic environmental impact statement for license renewal. NUREG 1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). Environmental impacts are categorized as either "Category 1" or "Category 2." See 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B to Subpart A, Table B-1. As a general matter, Category 1 impacts may not be challenged in license renewal proceedings. See Florida Power & Light. Co, (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 12 (2001). Category 2 issues include offsite land use (significant changes associated with population and tax revenue changes

3 resulting from license renewal), and the consideration of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B to Subpart A, Table B-1. 10 C.F.R. §1.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) and. (L). Entergy must address SAMA in its environmental report. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23, 64 NRC 257, 279, citing 10 C F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).

II.

Specific Deficiencies in the DSEIS Clearwater notes the following deficiencies in the DSEIS:

A. The DSEIS fails to adequately address the Radioactive Releases to Drinking Water Sources: Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems (2.1.4) and Radiological Impacts (2.2.7). NRC staffs discussion of planned and unplanned radioactive releases of tritium, strontium-90, cesium-37 and nickel-23 from IP-1 spent fuel pools and IP-2 and IP-3 relies on the fact that: i) such releases are within radiation standards; and ii) that there are no residential or municipal drinking water wells or surface reservoirs near the plant and thus there are no known impacts to any drinking water source.

In a discussion of the potential for groundwater contamination, NRC staff quotes Entergy as asserting that no NRC dose limits have been exceed[ed], and drinking water limits, [which the groundwater contamination under Indian Point does exceed], are not applicable since no drinking water exposure pathway exists (Entergy 2007a,). On p. 2-108, [c]urrently, there is no drinking water exposure pathway to humans that is affected by the contaminated ground water conditions at the IP2 and IP3 site. Potable water sources in the area of concern are not presently derived from ground water sources or the Hudson River, a fact confirmed by the New York State Department of Health.

However, contaminated ground water is leaking into the Hudson River (p.2-109) and the Hudson River is a municipal water source. On p. 2-36 the DSEIS mentions the Poughkeepsie Water Works (PWW), which processes drinking water from the Hudson River 30 miles upstream from the plant, as a source of water temperature information. Moreover, Table 2.9 lists all Major Public Water Supply Systems in the vicinity of IP2 and IP2 in 2005. All the facilities listed either use groundwater or surface water from reservoirs; except, as noted in the text, Poughkeepsie uses surface water from the Hudson River. Further, the DSEIS does not include the water intake in New Hamburg--a back up water supply for New York City located south of Poughkeepsie, or facilities in Rhinebeck, Highland/Town of Lloyd or Port Ewen/Town of Esopus, which take their drinking water directly from the Hudson. Also, while Table 2.9 may have been representative in 2005, the proposed Rockland County Desalination Plant, which, if approved, will be located directly across the Hudson River from Indian Point, would provide a third major source of water to Rockland County beyond existing ground and surfaces sources.

When fully constructed the facility would take up to 10 -15 million gallons per day (gpd) from the Hudson River via an intake on the border of Stony Point and Haverstraw only 3.5 miles from the plant to produce up to 7.5 million gpd for Rocklands water supply.

4 Given the potential impact upon the planned Rockland County water treatment plant (and upon other communities in the lower Hudson that take drinking water from the Hudson River), the deficiencies are substantial and the impacts may have direct adverse consequences upon human health. Because of the seriousness of this issue, Clearwater is filing a contention in the relicensing proceeding to require both Entergy and NRC staff to consider these impacts.

Figure 1. Map of Westchester County showing proximity of Indian Point to Potential Environmental Justice Areas (PEJA) in purple, with approximate location of United Water of NYs proposed desalination plant in Rockland County.

Courtesy of NYS DEC Office of Environmental Justice.

5 Additionally on p. 2-105, the DSEIS states that the results of the gamma spectroscopy analyses of the monthly drinking water samples and results of tritium analysis of quarterly composites showed that, other than naturally occurring radionuclides, no radionuclides from plant operation were detected in drinking water samples. The data indicate that operation of IP2 and IP3 had no detectable radiological effect on drinking water. The DSEIS is deficient because it does not specify where the drinking water samples were collected. The leaks, which were discovered in 2005, were likely present through the sampling in 2006, but no newer data has been included making it difficult to assess current and future trends now that the leaks are known.

B. The DSEIS fails to address the possible effects on Mothers Milk: Radiological Impacts (2.2.7): Because nearby dairies were closed by 1992, reports by NYS Department of Health in 1993 and 1994 indicated that no cows milk was collected or sampled nearby, although it is not clear what criteria were used to define nearby, and what methodology was used to determine the efficacy of this parameter. Furthermore, these studies and the evidence presented in the DSEIS failed to assess the impact of radiological releases on human breast milk; clearly human mothers milk is a potential route of exposure and should be evaluated.

C. The DSEIS fails to include Rockland County in Socioeconomic Factors (2.2.8): It is unclear why the NRC staff ignored all of Rockland County in this section. The reason stated is that the majority of the IP2 and IP3 workforce lives in the four counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam and Westchester (and not Rockland). However the topic is Plant Interaction with the Environment/Socioeconomic Factors, which is by no means limited to where the workforce resides. In fact, much of Rockland County is within the 17.5-mile peak fatality zone and all of Rockland is within the 50-mile peak injury zone around Indian Point. While it is clear on Table 2.7 that a relatively small percentage of Indian Point employees live in Rockland, there were still 28 employees from Rockland and the proportion could easily increase over the twenty years of the license renewal. This defect applies to the housing section 2.2.8.1 and Table 2-8, as well.

D. The DSEIS fails to Project Demographics (2.2.8.5) of Environmental Justice Populations: Table 2-11 looks at demographics and projects future growth, which has further implications regarding evacuation; Tables 2-12 and 2-13 look at 2000 and 2006 data, but do not project the growth of non-white and low-income populations over the 20 years of the LRA. See also discussion below on environmental justice.

E. The DSEIS fails to evaluate the impact of global warming on the relicensing of Indian Point: The projected warming of the Hudson River and the projected increase and severity of storms and flooding could exacerbate the impact of the thermal plume discharged by Indian Point cooling systems into the river. Increased storms and flooding could exacerbate the effects of aging, such as corrosion of underground piping and other systems, thereby increasing the possibility of additional accidental radiation, releases such as the one that occurred in February 2009.

F. The DSEIS fails to analyze seismic hazard: This is a serious omission, especially in light of recent seismic activity in the region, and recent studies conducted by Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which specifically note the potential threat to Indian Point.

6 G. The DSEIS fails to adequately address the impact upon the environment and human health of storing spent fuel rods and other nuclear waste on site indefinitely. Recent announcements by the Secretary of Energy indicate that the use of Yucca Mountain as a long-term storage site for high-level nuclear waste is likely to be abandoned, leaving little alternative but to store Indian Points high-level nuclear waste on site in dry cask storage.

H. Issues Related to Cooling Systems (4.1): In Section 2.2.5, Aquatic Resources, Regulatory Framework for Monitoring, on p. 2 -49, in referring to the Hudson River Settlement Agreement, the NRC staff refers to lack of agreement on fifth consent order in the ongoing SPDES renewal process, and again in 4.1:

The SPDES permit for the Indian Point site, which addressed discharge from the currently operating IP2 and IP3, as well as the shutdown IP1 unit, expired in 1992 but has been administratively extended by NYSDEC. The NYSDEC proposed new SPDES permit for the site, currently in draft form, is in adjudication. The SPDES permit for the Indian Point site, which addressed discharge from the current operating IP2 and IP3, as well as the shutdown IP1 unit, expired in 1992 but has been administratively extended by NYSDEC. The NYSDEC proposed new SPDES permit for the site, currently in draft form, is in adjudication.

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1997 (CWA) (Title 33, Section 1326, of the United States Code (33 USC 1326)) requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of Environmental Impacts of Operation December 2008 4-7 Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 38 cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. In the fact sheet for the sites draft SPDES permit, NYSDEC states that it has determined that the site-specific best technology available (BTA) to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the IP Units 1, 2, and 3 cooling water intake structures is closed-cycle cooling (NYSDEC 2003b). Under the terms of the proposed SPDES permit, NYSDEC (2003b) states that it will evaluate proposals from Entergy to institute alternative methods to avoid adverse environmental impacts. Given NYSDECs statements in the proposed SPDES permit, the NRC staff decided to consider the environmental impacts that may occur if Entergy institutes closed-cycle cooling at IP2 and IP3as well as the environmental impacts of a possible alternative method of reducing impacts to aquatic lifein Chapter 8 of this SEIS. p. 4 -6, 4-7.

There was no mention of possible new cooling towers from BTA closed-cycle cooling on p. 2-119, which addressed future Visual Aesthetics and Noise of the plant; however these are thoroughly discussed in Section 8.1.1. The main discussion of closed-cycle cooling in Section 4.1 centered around potentially reduced fish impacts on fish from significantly reduced cooling water consumption and subsequent reduction of impingement, entrainment and thermal pollution (heat shock).

The NRC staff has done a very detailed assessment of the impacts of the impingement, entrainment and heat shock from the plants 2.8 billion gallon per day cooling systems on a variety of aquatic species. The May 2008 Pisces Report indicates that ten of the thirteen signature Hudson River fish populations are in decline. The effects of the cooling systems at Indian Point and the several fossil fuel plants along the Hudson is not the only cause of the decline (fishing pressures, loss of habitat, invasive species are among other causes) but they do contribute significantly and are a controllable cause of fish decline.

7 NYSDEC, in Section 1, Biological Effects, of Attachment B to the 2003 SPDES fact sheet (NYSDEC 2003b), states that operation of IP2 and IP3 results in the mortality of more than a billion fish of various lifestages per year and that losses are distributed primarily among seven species, including bay anchovy, striped bass, white perch, blueback herring, Atlantic tomcod, alewife, and American shad. Of these, NYSDEC indicates that the populations of Atlantic tomcod, American shad, and white perch are known to be declining in the Hudson River and considers current losses to be substantial. (p.4-9)

In addition to Atlantic tomcod, American shad, and white perch, the Pisces Report indicates that alewife, bay anchovy, and blueback herring are declining as well, as are rainbow smelt, and weakfish, which are found in the IP section of the river, as well as white catfish, which were not found, according to table 2-5, p. 2-57. Striped bass, which are strong predators, are recovering, but themselves contribute to the decline of other species.

Clearwaters main concern in this regard is the lack of data on which to base a careful assessment. Impingement losses associated with IP2 and IP3 were studied annually from 1975 to 1990. However, no further studies were conducted after the modified Ristroph traveling screens were installed in 1992 in all intake bays of IP2 and IP3, and no assessment was ever performed to determine their effectiveness by documenting any change in mortality of key species. NRC staff site many other examples of insufficient data.

I. The DSEIS Fails to adequately address potential visual and EJ impacts of the Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative (8.1.1): This section discusses a variety of impacts from closed-cycle cooling, which NYSDEC identified closed-cycle cooling as a BTA in its 2003 draft SPDES permit (NYSDEC 2003a, 2003c). Entergys preferred close-cycle alternative consists of two hybrid mechanical-draft cooling towers (Enercon 2003, Entergy 2007). IP2 and IP3 would each utilize one cooling tower. Entergy rejected single-stage mechanical draft cooling towers, indicating that the dense water vapor plumes from the towers may compromise station operations (including visual signaling) and equipment over time, and single-stage towers may result in increased noise (Enercon 2003). These include land disturbance and the need to prevent erosion and siltation, visual/aesthetic impacts of either type of cooling

towers, additional

noise, health, socioeconomic and other impacts.

A concern here is that the DSEIS ignores potential environmental justice impacts on the residents of the City of Peekskill, just 2.5 miles from the site. It focuses exclusively on Buchanan and Verplanck, while also ignoring potential impacts on Haverstraw and West Haverstraw, whose communities are designated by New York State as having potential Environmental Justice areas (PEJA). This is true also in the map on Figure 2.9 on p. 2-25, which shows topographic features surrounding IP 2 and IP 3, just south of Peekskill, but does not include Peekskill.

Again, in discussing EJ impacts of closed-cycle cooling at p. 8-15:

The NRC staff addresses environmental justice impacts of continued operations in Section 4.4.6 of this draft SEIS. Construction and operation of cooling towers at IP2 and IP3 would have an impact on potential environmental justice if environmental impacts of cooling system construction and operation affected minority and low-income populations in a disproportionately high and adverse manner.

8 Within the 50-mi (80-km) radius of the IP2 and IP3 site, a number of potential environmental impacts (onsite land use, aesthetics, air quality, waste management and socioeconomic impacts) could affect populations in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, the potentially affected populations for the construction and operation of the closed-cycle cooling alternative, including residents of the Villages of Buchanan and Verplanck, contain low percentages of minority and low-income populations.

Overall, low-income populations within the 50-mi (80-km) radius represent a small percentage of the total population. The low-income population was approximately 11.7 percent of the total population in the combined four-State reference area, or 10.4 percent when the individual States were used as the geographic area. According to 2004 census data, the percentages of people below the low-income criteria in Dutchess and Westchester Counties were 7.7 percent.

This narrowed focus should be corrected in the final EIS for this project.

III.

Deficiencies in the DSEIS Relating to Environmental Justice (EJ)

A. General EJ Standards Environmental justice (EJ) issues are not considered as part of the generic EIS, and therefore, an environmental justice assessment must be performed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("Supplemental EIS"). See NRC Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions, 69 Fed. Reg. 52040 (Aug. 24, 2004).

In fact in 1994, President Clinton issued executive order decreeing the EJ must be a part of the NEPA process. Specifically, President Clinton wrote:

[E]ach Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.

Exec. Order No. 12,898, 1994 WL 43891 (Pres.Exec.Order), 59 FR 7629. The NRC has adopted this executive order and incorporated it into its regulations 69 Fed. Reg. 52040. In a March 31, 1994 letter to President Clinton, then Commissioner of the NRC, Ivan Selvin stated that the NRC would carry out the measures in the Executive Order. See LBP-97-8, 45 NRC at 375. An EIS must conduct a full and thorough investigation. Id. The NRC is required to address environmental justice impacts in an environmental impact statement for a license renewal. Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions, 69 Fed. Reg. 52040 (Aug. 24, 2004)("EJ Policy Statement")

In the EJ Policy Statement, the NRC stated that "EJ is a tool, within the normal NEPA context, to identify communities that might otherwise be overlooked and identify impacts due to their uniqueness as part of the NRC's NEPA review process." EJ Policy Statement, at 52047. An EJ-related socioeconomic impact analysis is pertinent "when there is a nexus to the human or physical environment or if an evaluation 'is necessary for an accurate cost-benefit analysis. Id.

at 52047. According the EJ Policy Statement, the focus of any EJ review "should be on

9 identifying and weighing disproportionately significant and adverse, environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations that may be different from the impacts on the general population." Id. at 52047. The NRC recognizes that the impacts of its licensing decisions on some populations "may be different from impacts on the general population due to a community's distinct "cultural characteristics or practices." Id. The NRC has acknowledged that "EJ, as well as other socio-economic issues are normally considered in site-specific EISs," are not usually considered during the preparation of generic EISs, and are performed "in the licensing action for each particular facility." Id.

The NRC has indicated that normally a 50-mile radius should be examined for licensing and regulatory actions involving power reactors, however this is only a guideline and the "geographic scale should be commensurate with the potential impact area and should include a sample of the surrounding population because the goal is to evaluate the communities, neighborhoods, and areas that may be disproportionately impacted." Id. at 52047-8. The NRC instructs that once the impacted area is identified, potentially affected low-income or minority communities should be identified. The NRC compares the percentage of the minority or low-income population in the impacted area to the percentage in the County and State. If the percentage in the impacted area significantly exceeds that of the State or County percentage for either minority or low-income population, then EJ will be considered in greater detail. Id. at 52048. "Significantly" is defined by staff guidance to be 20 percentage points. Alternatively, if either the minority or low-income population percentage exceeds 50 percent, EJ matters are considered in greater detail. Id.

However, this is only guidance and these numbers are flexible: The goal is to identify and assure that communities or transient populations that will bear significant adverse effects will not be overlooked. Id. Therefore, this issue is material to findings that must be made in this proceeding.

10 C.F.R. §2.309(f)(1)(iv).

In addition, although the EJ Policy Statement does not expressly require the NRC to consider potential impacts on communities other than minority and low-income populations, NEPA clearly requires an analysis of impacts of license renewal on other discrete communities that may be impacted, including people with disabilities, and people who are hospitalized, in nursing homes, in psychiatric facilities, and in other similar institutions and long-and short-term care facilities. Such an analysis is mandated by NEPA and supported by the broad range of federal law and policy that protects these groups of people including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 1997 et seq., Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 4151 et seq., Sections 501, 503, 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C §§ 791, 793, and 794, and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Given NEPA and the NRC's regulations, 10 CFR Part 51, a Supplemental EIS is required as part of this license renewal proceeding and that Supplemental EIS must address the environmental justice impacts of renewing the Indian Point licenses, together with the impacts upon people with disabilities and people in institutions, and in long-and short-term care facilities in the surrounding area.

B. The DSEIS Fails to Perform an Adequate Analysis of Environmental Justice, Disabled and Institutionalized Populations

10 As stated above, the NRC Staff is required to review the impacts upon the environmental justice, disabled and institutionalized populations that will occur because of Indian Points license renewal. The DSEIS completely ignores the impacts on disabled and institutionalized populations.

The DSEIS contains a seriously flawed environmental justice and related analyses that do not adequately assess the impacts of Indian Point on the minority, low-income, disabled and institutionalized populations in the area surrounding Indian Point. The NRC Staffs DSEIS does not satisfy NEPA because its methodology is flawed, and its analysis is incomplete and limited to questionable interpretations and presentation of data. It fails to acknowledge or describe potential impacts upon the high minority, low-income, disabled and institutionalized populations that surround the plant. The DSEIS also fails to provide a sufficient analysis of the many potential and disparate environmental impacts of Indian Point on the minority and low-income communities residing in close proximity to Indian Point.

First, there appears to be a disparate impact upon minority communities for cancer that may be related to radiation releases from Indian Point. Second, there is a group of subsistence fisherman in the Hudson who will suffer disparate impacts from radiation released from Indian Point that may wind up in the Hudson River fish. Third, there is a large minority, low-income and disabled population in special facilities (including hospitals and prisons) within 50 miles who will be severely impacted if there is an evacuation from the area surrounding Indian Point. It does not appear that these issues have been considered in prior environmental impact statements prepared in connection with Indian Point nor were the considered in the DSEIS.

The NRC Staffs analysis is based upon at least three flawed premises: first, an improper methodology; second it fails to adequately acknowledge the significant EJ, disabled and institutionalized communities within 50 miles of Indian Point; and third, it fails to assess the impact of license renewal on these communities. As discussed above, NRC's policy statement makes clear those impacts on some populations "may be different from impacts on the general population," and that "EJ, as well as other socio-economic issues are normally considered in site-specific EISs," are not in the preparation of generic EIS. EJ Policy Statement. Therefore, potential effects impacts the relicensing will have on these communities cannot be ignored.

i. The N.R.Cs EJ and Demographic Methodology is Flawed and Incomplete.

The N.R.C. Staff has performed a partial and questionable descriptive portrait of minority and low-income populations within the NRC-defined impact area. The data set that the NRC Staff present is incomplete. They do not, for example, present their raw data for total minority and low-income populations for each Census Block Group (CBG), which would permit the public to independently assess and analyze the information. Moreover, the NRC Staffs data is limited to highly aggregated summaries based upon relative percentages of population groups targeted by the NRC review process. We are not presented with relevant numerators or denominators for target populations in each, Census Block Group, which would be necessary for serious data analysis. Whether this is intended obfuscation or not, the strategy is very convenient

11 for the NRC Staff and they do not have to deal with the evident fact that millions of non-whites live within the 50-mile zone.

Also, in the DSEIS the NRC Staff relies on incomplete statistical analyses and/or inconsistent data in making their assessments. For example, the DSEIS discusses the population within 20 miles of Indian Point based on the 2000 census data however there is no mention of the minority composition within 20 miles of Indian Point. Another inconsistency found in the DSEIS is the use of projected population growth rates for the total population during the license renewal period while not including projected growth rates for environmental justice communities over that same time period. See Table 2-11 DSEIS (shows general population growth from 1970-2000 and provides projected growth from 2010 through 2050). The DSEIS does not contain an equivalent analysis for minority populations.

The DSEIS also does not discuss the significant environmental justice community in the city of Peekskill, which is 2.5 miles from Indian Point nor does the DSEIS assess the impact that the license renewal will have on this community. Indeed, the DSEIS does discuss two communities in the vicinity of IP Buchanan and Verplanck to explain how the areas surrounding IP do not have a significant EJ community, 7% and 11% respectively (p. 8-16). However, it fails to discuss the significant EJ community merely 2.5 miles from the plant in Peekskill to the north, or the communities of Haverstraw and West Haverstraw 3.5 miles across the Hudson to the southwest (See Figure 1). NYS DEC lists these three communities on its map of EJ communities at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/westchesterco.pdf and http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/rocklandco.pdf. Without complete and consistent data the DSEIS does not meet the minimum requirements of NEPA.

The NRC Staffs use of Census Block Groups is, also, crude. CBGs are too gross in how they capture data, since they obscure small neighborhood concentrations of minority populations that likely would emerge had Entergy's analysis focused on the smallest geographic unit utilized by the Bureau of the Census, the Census Block, rather than aggregations of Census Blocks Groups.

Census Blocks provide the finest level of detail in the Census Bureau figures. Since minority groups are often highly concentrated in specific neighborhoods, a CBG aggregation can obscure the presence of those racial and ethnic communities, especially in the small towns and cities that characterize the mid-Hudson Valley. Census Block-level analysis should result in a more accurate identification of minority and low-income population concentrations within the specified impact region. Moreover, even with the limited data the DSEIS includes, it is notable that there is no analysis of the data. The obvious implications of its findings, including the potential for disproportionate effects of Indian Point on minority populations, are disregarded by the NRC Staff. Probable real-life impacts on Environmental Justice Communities are neither presented nor analyzed.

Because the NRC Staff has used a flawed methodology it has left unanswered questions that are essential in a rigorous environmental justice analysis, such as: i) What would a proper analysis of the data show?; ii) How are the large minority populations living very near the plant (see, e.g, ER, Figure 2-22) likely to be impacted?; and iii) How would the huge number of low income and minority people living within 50 miles of the plant - a number in the millions, larger than the total population of many states and most metropolitan regions in the United States - be impacted

12 by a renewal of Entergy's license? The NRCs Final Supplemental EIS must address these questions.

ii. The NRC Staff Does Not Adequately Acknowledge the Significant EJ Communities within 50 Miles of Indian Point, or Assess Indian Point's Impact on this Community.

As discussed above, NRC guidance instructs that in evaluating minority communities within the impacted area, it is appropriate to determine whether the percentage of EJ population in the impacted area significantly exceeds the population in the local county or state as a whole.

Id. at 52048. NRC staff guidance defines "Significantly" as a disparity of 20 percentage points, and, alternatively, states that EJ matters should be considered in greater detail, in any event, if either the minority or low-income population percentage exceeds 50 percent. Id.

In the DSEIS, the NRC Staff cites to the United States Census from 2000 to inform us that 48.7% of the population residing within 50 miles of Indian Point identify themselves as minorities. Relying on data that will be ten years old at the time the license renewal period is inadequate. However, even with this flawed and outdated information one can determine that this is significant because it shows a minority population that is 15 percentage points higher than the national average.1 In addition, when you compute the projected growth rate for minority populations over the 10-year period from 2000 to 2010 the percentage of minority population exceeds 50% and therefore becomes significant.

In fact, Table 2-7A in the ER indicates that 45.5 percent of Census Blocks within a 50-mile radius in the four states surrounding Indian Point have "significant" minority populations as defined by NRC guidance (ER, Table 2-7A, p. 2-42). This high number of Census Block groups means that very large numbers of minority community members reside in a 50-mile radius of Indian Point.

It should be noted that neither the EJ Policy Statement nor the staff guidance is a regulation, and as such, these numbers are not binding. As the EJ Policy Statement makes clear, the numbers are flexible and are written with the goal of identifying communities or transient populations and assuring that significant adverse effects will not be overlooked. Id. In any event, a very large number of Census Blocks meet the NRC criteria of having high proportions of minorities: either a ratio of 50 percent or more of its population belonging to a minority as defined by the NRC, or a minority to total population ratio that is 20 percent or greater than the average for the reference region.

Indeed, compared to any other area of the nation, more minority group members are at greater risk from releases or serious incident at Indian Point than at any nuclear plant in the country.2 1 Overall, the nations minority population reached 102.5 million in 2007 34 percent of the total.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html 2 In addition, on March 6, 2009 ACRS panel made it clear that Indian Point will continue to leak into the future.

13 Figures 2-20 and 2-21 from the ER clearly indicate: 1) a geographic concentration of racial minority Census Block in the most densely populated sub-regions within the region defined by a 50-mile radius; and 2) a significant presence of racial minority Census Blocks located within closer proximity to Indian Point (Applicant's Environmental Report, p. 2-115, 116). Moreover, when Hispanic ethnicity is added to minority racial status in Figures 2-22 and 2-23 (Applicants Environmental Report), the exceptionally strong presence of minority groups in the NRC defined impact region is even more striking. (Applicant's Environmental Report, p. 2-117,11.8.)

It is also notable that the New York Metropolitan Region contained 10.6 percent of the total minority population of the United States (www.census.gov).3 In fact, a significant fraction of the total minority populations of the United States as a whole is, located within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point. Westchester County, the home of Indian Point, has a proportion of both African-Americans and Hispanics, which exceeds that for the United States as a whole. African-Americans composed 14.9 percent of Westchester's total population in 2005, compared to 12.8 percent of the national. This means that the Westchester African American population is 16.4%

higher than in the U.S. as whole. The enormity of the African American population in absolute numbers and the high percentage both demand that an impact assessment be made.

The 2000 Census indicates that 9,246,133 out of 21,199,865 people residing in the New York Metropolitan Region, 43.6 percent are either classified in non-white racial categories or are Hispanics or Latinos reporting their race as white. This compares with 30.9 percent for the United States as whole, which had a total minority population of 86,869,132 in the year 2000 population (U.S. Bureau of the Census at www.census.gov), Hispanics composed 18.0 percent of Westchester County's population, as opposed to 14.4 percent of the national population. This means that the Hispanic population in Westchester is 25% higher than the national average, a number well above the 20% NRC, guidance number. (U.S. Bureau of the Census at www.census.gov.)

Westchester County also is home to an unusually high proportion of people who were born abroad, and who speak a language other than English at home. Since Asia composes the second most-important source of immigration after Latin America, all high proportion of Westchester's non-Hispanic immigrants belong to environmental justice groups as well. Proportionally, twice as many of Westchester's 949,355 residents were born abroad as compared to the national average: 22.2 percent compared to 11.1 percent in the year 2000. With respect to the language spoken at home 28.4 percent of Westchester residents speak a language other than English, compared to 17.9 percent nationally. (U.S. Bureau of the Census at www.census.gov)

Parallel observations apply to Census Blocks with high proportions of low-income residents.

Figures 2-24 and 2-25 in Entergy's submission indicate a substantial presence of low-income Census Blocks as defined by NRC criteria. Using an individual state criterion for classifying Census Blocks, Entergy's data indicates that 10.4 percent of these geographical units have relatively high concentrations of low-income residents. Entergys alternative methodology of aggregating average poverty levels across four states yields a measurement of 11.8 percent of 3 Given the considerable overlap between the region defined by a 50-mile radius of Indian Point and the New York Metropolitan Region as defined by the Census, we use the relative weight of minorities in the latter as a proxy for racial proportion of minorities in the NRC-defined impact region.

14 Census Blocks within the 50-mile radius. One obvious conclusion from this measurement is not stated: counties within the 50-mile impact region defined by NRC had a total population of 19.9 million people. (Applicant's Environmental Report, p. 2-37). The fact that one out of ten Census Blocks is classified as low-income, most of them in the most densely populated part of the impact region means that at least several million low-income people are impacted.

Given the enormity of the EJ population in this region, both in percentage and absolute terms, further investigation by independent experts is mandated. There is a particular need to consider the full range of health, accident risk and terrorist risk impacts on minority populations residing immediately adjacent to Indian Point: in Peekskill, Haverstraw and West Haverstraw. Entergy's ER Figures 2-22 and 2-23 show that these are the closest EJ communities to the plant, and therefore the most likely to be impacted. Because the NRC Staff concludes that there are no offsite impacts, it makes no effort to analyze the impact that continued operation of the plant may have on these populations and is seriously incomplete.

The NRC has failed to adequately address the effects that a license renewal will have on these communities in its DSEIS and must adequately and accurately address the effects on the communities in its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

C. The Environmental Justice Impacts that must be addressed in the Final Supplemental EIS for Indian Point.

As set forth above, the NRC is required to address the environmental justice impacts of the renewal of Indian Points licenses. The DSEIS failed to or inadequately addressed the:

impact of cancer on minority and low-income populations that are more susceptible to cancer from Indian Point radionuclide emissions than other populations; impact to subsistence fishing in the Hudson River; fact that low-income populations will be more severely and negatively impacted by an evacuation resulting from a radiological event at Indian Point; the fact that disabled and institutionalized residents of special facilities will be more severely and negatively impacted by an evacuation or radiological event at Indian Point, including disabled patients in the dozens of hospitals and long term care facilities, and inmates in the many prisons in the area; and environmental justice concerns relating to production and long term storage of Indian Point's Fuel, especially upon Native American populations.

i. The Final Supplemental Impact Statement Must Address the Impact of Cancer Because Minority and Low-Income Populations May be More Susceptible to Cancer from Indian Point Radionuclide Emissions than Other Populations.

Research has shown that cancer rates in the four counties surrounding Indian Point are higher than for the general population. The NRC fails to adequately address this fact in its DSEIS. In its DSEIS it states that because it does not see effects to the population as a whole there must not

15 be effects to minority groups. This is a logical fallacy and cannot be the basis for a hard look.

Indeed, minority groups in the four county region are more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of radiological and nuclear plant induced chemical pollution in the environment that is the case for the general minority or Entergy's submission comments that "most" of the low-income Census Blocks are located within a 29-40 mile radius. (Applicant's Environmental Report, p. 2-45.) One possible reading of this comment is an implication that these Census Blocks somehow count less because they are in an intermediate zone of the NRC-defined impact region. That interpretation is far from obvious, and far from NRC application review criteria. It also demands a look into the specific impacts on the many low-income Census Blocks that are in closer proximity to Indian Point.

As evidenced by Joseph Mangano's preliminary findings of an increase in thyroid cancer and other health impacts in those communities closest to the plant, the current magnitude of the impact on the affected population may be significant and the projected impact on the health of the population during the new license period must be carefully evaluated in the Final Supplemental EIS. Public Health Risks, by Joseph Mangano, p. 17-34. Low-income and minority populations living near the plant are at a considerably increased risk of getting cancer.

Four of the nine zip code regions closest to Indian Point have either high or intermediate concentrations of minorities and low-income populations, and these adjacent residents are exposed to higher risks of cancer than minority and low-income populations, residing in sub-regions of Westchester and Rockland Counties that are further from Indian Point.

ii. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Must Fully and Accurately Address the Impact to Subsistence Fishing in the Hudson River.

In its DSEIS, although the NRC Staff acknowledges that subsistence fishing occurs in the region its assessment is merely cursory and fails to take into account the high percentage of minority and low-income populations in the lower Hudson Valley region who engage in subsistence fishing. Because of planned and unplanned emissions from Indian Point, through leaks, air and otherwise, it is likely that this population's intake of radionuclides and other toxic substances generated by the reactors will be both significant, and significantly greater, than the population at large. The cumulative effects have been increasing, and will continue to increase if a license renewal is granted. Because subsistence fishing is an exposure pathway that disproportionately impacts low-income and minority populations, subsistence fishing must be considered in greater depth in the NRCs Final EIS.

There is a long history of subsistence fishing in the Hudson in the areas surrounding Indian Point. In 1998, the New York State Department of Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the United States' Department of Health and Human Services released a study concerning subsistence fishing in connection with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Survey of Hudson River Anglers and an Estimate of Their Exposure to PCBs, September 30, 1998, prepared by State of New York Department of Health Under a Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ("Angler Survey").4 (www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/hudsonri/hudtoc.html). The report was based on Clearwaters 4 ATSDR. 1989. Health Assessment for Hudson River PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) NPL Site, State of New York, CERCLIS No. NYD980763841.

16 Hudson River Angler Survey, which included results from 336 shore-based anglers interviewed at 20 different locations along the Hudson, including three sites in the upper Hudson, during 1991 and 1992 (Barclay, 1993)5. The anglers were asked how often they fished and ate fish from the Hudson in the previous week and month, and the extent to which they shared their catch with other relatives and friends. The Angler Survey described the very serious community health concerns for children and women of childbearing age who were non-white or low-income.

The ATSDR report also included the results of a second Hudson River Angler Survey was performed by Edward Horn of the NYS Department of Health in 1996 and found similar results.6 The 1996 survey used essentially the same questionnaire used in the original 1993 Clearwater study, which found that many Hudson River anglers were not aware of the consumption advisories and others who were aware did not heed the advice. The report highlighted concerns for women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 who appear to be at particular risk, for non-whites and for low-income anglers. The author concluded that the prohibition of fishing in the Upper Hudson River and the health advisories were "having only limited success in preventing unsafe levels of exposure to PCBs through consumption of Hudson River fish.

Angler Survey (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/hudsonri/hud_toc.html )

The results of the study were compelling and have important implications for Indian Point because, like PCBs, strontium-90, cesium-137 and other radioactive isotopes bioaccumulate in higher trophic levels in the food chain. In both the 1991 and 1996 surveys, more than half the anglers had annual incomes less than $30,000. Moreover both studies found that compared to licensed anglers across the state, the Mid-Hudson River anglers in the studies consisted of: a much greater proportion of African-American and Hispanic anglers, a much greater proportion of family incomes less than $30,000 and a larger proportion of women. Id.

Additionally, low-income respondents were less aware of the health advisories than the others (21-34%-compared to 49-68%), two-thirds of angler fishing between Catskill and the Tappan Zee Bridge (the area closest to Indian Point) reported eating at least some of their fish, and almost half of anglers gave fish away sometimes or frequently; and the fish that anglers kept were the most contaminated species in each part of the river; half of the anglers who said they ate fish from the Hudson River reported eating two meals in the previous month; and some anglers and others who eat fish from the Hudson River were being exposed to levels of PCBs that are a health concern and are at risk of adverse health effects.

There are many reasons to believe that radionuclides from Indian Point are ending up in the local fish population and being eaten by subsistence anglers, a largely minority and low-income population, in the region. The most likely affected populations are the non-English speaking residents and the residents of Buchanan, Peekskill, Verplanck, Haverstraw, Stony Point and others living within 10 miles of Indian Point. They are unjustly endangered for the following reasons:

5 Barclay, B., 1993. Hudson River Angler Survey: A Report on the Adherence to Fish Consumption Health Advisories Among Hudson River Anglers, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 1993.

6 Horn, E.G., L.J. Hetling and T.J. Tofflemire. 1979. The Problem of PCBs in the Hudson River System. Annals NY Acad. Sci.

320: 591-609.

17 Radioactive isotopes are known to bioaccumulate in the aquatic food web in a manner similar to that of PCBs, except that radionuclides are harbored in bones more than in fatty tissue. Since Indian Point is leaking strontium-90, the impact on the environment and human health is site-specific.

The exposure caused by the presence of radionuclides in fish is clearly an environmental injustice, because people who rely on the river for a large portion of their protein are disproportionately impacted by pollution from the plant. The LRA does not set -forth mitigation measures which locate, contain, and remediate any and all leaks of strontium, cesium and tritium from Indian Point into the ground, air, groundwater and river.

The DSEIS fails to fully assess the unique burdens faced by minority and low-income populations who depend on the Hudson River for food. These populations are already disproportionately affected, via bioaccumulation, by increases in hazardous and radioactive material from the nuclear reactors at Indian Point.

Further, the DSEIS is inadequate because it fails to consider impacts to important fish species targeted by subsistence fishermen. Low-income and minority communities will bear-the burden if target species are contaminated with radioactive isotopes, or are smaller, less abundant, or less healthy because of the proposed relicensing.

NRC Staffs Final Supplemental EIS must consider the lack of fish consumption advisories, or awareness of associated risks among the minority and low-income populations. Subsidence anglers who fish in the Hudson River are unaware that the food they are catching for their families may contain strontium-90 and other radioactive isotopes. A high proportion of subsistence anglers are members of minority groups or have-low-incomes.

Unlike the case for Hudson River PCBs where signage has been posted and bilingual educational materials have been widely distributed, there are no health advisories to inform recreational or subsistence anglers that the fish or crabs in the area may contain radioactive isotopes, nor does the LRA acknowledge the need for such a program during the 20 year new superseding license period. These fishermen and women are unaware that radioactive strontium has been detected in the flesh and bones of some area fish. This is especially dangerous for young children, because strontium acts like calcium in bone formation and has a half-life of 33 years. As Barclay and other have observed, even with posted fish advisories, compliance is low for a variety of reasons, including lack of understanding and denial.

During the proposed 20-year license renewal period, there is a reasonable probability that subsidence anglers may be adversely affected by Entergy's failure to properly prevent the release of radioactive waste into the environment: the air, the water and the ground. The DSEIS also failed to look at synergistic effects of radiation with other known toxins, such as PCBs, dioxins, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), mercury and other heavy metals which are known to be present in the regional environment, especially as they bioaccumulate in the food chain.

18 The Final Supplemental EIS must address the impact that renewing the licenses will have on subsidence anglers.

iii. The Final Supplemental EIS Must Address the Fact that Low-Income Populations Will be More Severely and Negatively Impacted by an Evacuation Resulting from a Radiological Event at Indian Point.

The DSEIS is deficient because it fails to discuss or analyze the disparate impact a significant accident would have on minority and low-income populations, nor does it address these communities' ability to respond or evacuate in the event of a nuclear accident or terrorist incident. Low-income and minority families are more likely to use public transportation and may not have a personal vehicle, making evacuation more difficult. The recent Hurricane Katrina disaster revealed that low-income and minority populations are particularly vulnerable in emergency situations. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the City of New Orleans developed and implemented an emergency plan that was well, engineered and publicized. One evaluation of the Katrina emergency response states that "People who had resources were served relatively well because planners are familiar with their abilities and needs. People who were poor, disabled or ill were not well served, apparently because decision-makers were unfamiliar with and insensitive to their needs. Litman, Lessons from Katrina and Rita: What Major Disasters Can Teach Transportation Planners, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 132, January 2006. pp. 11-

18. (Exhibit 2.9).

iv. The Final Supplemental EIS Must Address the Fact that Residents of Special Facilities will be More Severely and Negatively Impacted by an Evacuation or Radiological Event at Indian Point, including disabled patients in the dozens of hospitals and long term care facilities, and inmates in the many prisons in the area.

There are many thousands of prisoners housed in prisons and jails within the 50-mile emergency planning zone, including at least twenty-six federal, state, county and New York City facilities --

not including police holding areas, juvenile detention centers, psychiatric facilities, and not including any facilities in Connecticut and New Jersey. New York City alone averaged 13,497 prisoners per day in 2006, most of whom were housed within 50 miles of Indian Point. See http://www.nyc.gov/html/doc/html/stats/doc stats.shtml (visited November 25, 2007). Sing Sing Correctional Facility is located within the 10-mile zone, approximately 8 miles from Indian Point, and as of November 3, 2007, housed 1760 prisoners.

Although Sing Sing is a maximum-security prison for convicted felons, it bears noting that many prisoners held in New York City and local jail facilities have not been convicted of a crime, but are merely being held pending trial. The vast majority of prisoners are minority and indigent, and therefore any harm to the prison population would have a hugely disproportionate burden on minority and low-income communities. For example, according to New York's Monthly Minority Inmate Population Report, on November 3, 2007 at Sing Sing, only 212 of 1760 inmates were white (12%) -- 994 were African American (56.4%) and 520 were Hispanic (29%).

The statewide numbers are only slightly less disparate: 20.8% white, 51.2% African American, 26% Hispanic. Additionally, according to a recent study by the Sentencing Project, the prison

19 population nationwide has grown more than 500% since the 1970's when Indian Point was first licensed, to a current prison population of more than 2.2 million people. "Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration By Race and Ethnicity," p. 1 Marc Mauer and Ryan S. King, The Sentencing Project July 2007 (http://www.sentencingproject.org/

Admin%5CDocuments%5Cpublications%5Crd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf).

This growth has been accompanied by an increasingly disproportional radical composition; African Americans; for example, now constitute 900,000 of the total 2.2 million incarcerated population. Id. The Hispanic prison population also had increased dramatically-- by 43% since 1990. Id. at p. 2, citing Louis W. Jankowsky, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1990, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992, p. 86; Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck, Prisoners in 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006, p. 8. Nationwide, according to the study, the per capita incarceration rate of African Americans is 5.6 times the rate of whites, and the per capital incarceration rate for Hispanics is nearly double (1.8) times the rate of whites. Id., p. 3.

According to this study, New York is well above the national average. The incarceration rates for African Americans in New York is 9.4 times that of whites (9th highest in the country) and for Hispanics 4.5 times that of Whites (4th in country) Id. p. 11, 14. Other states within Indian Point's peak injury zone are also highly disproportionate: New Jersey and Connecticut have the 3rd and 4 the highest rates in the country, respectively, of black-to-white white incarceration (12 or more times higher than whites); and the 6th and 11th highest rates in the country, respectively, of Hispanic-to-white incarceration (6.6 times higher than whites in Connecticut; and 3.3 higher than whites in NJ). Id. See, also, The National Center for State Courts (http

//www.ncsConline.org/wc/CourTopics/FAQs.asp?topic=IndDef)(visited November 25, 2007)

(80-90% of people charged with crimes nationwide are entitled to indigent representation). There are also many dozens, perhaps hundreds of other special facilities including hospitals, nursing homes, elder care facilities and psychiatric facilities in the 50 miles zone. These facilities may have higher percentages of minority and low-income populations, and they certainly have a disproportionate number of people with disabilities.

In 2002, New York Governor George Pataki commissioned former FEMA chairman, James Lee Witt, to prepare a report on emergency preparedness in relation to Indian Point. "Review of Emergency Preparedness of Areas Adjacent to Indian Point and Millstone,"' James Lee Witt Associates, 2003 ("Witt Report"). The Witt Report analyzed evacuation plans for two correctional facilities, Sing Sing, and Westchester Department of Corrections. The Witt Report suggests that the initial evacuation plan at these facilities is to shelter-in-place, and then to evacuate if deemed appropriate.

The Witt Report found that Sing Sing is a maximum and medium security prison located in Westchester County within the 10 mile EPZ. It suggested that, initially at least, the plan for Sing Sing in the event of a radiological event was to shelter-in-place. The report indicates that the first step in a radiological event would be for a lock-down - - meaning that prisoners would be retained in their cells. Sing Sing had no radiation monitors. They had no hazard specific training for its staff, nor was there training about family protection plans. The report indicated that any decision to evacuate would be made by the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) and

20 would be based upon whether it is riskier to move inmates rather than to stay in place. Witt Report, ¶ 4.5.2.1, p. 71.

The Witt Report also reported upon the Westchester Department of Corrections facility, in Valhalla, NY, located 17 miles from Buchanan. The report indicated that the facility would learn of an event from Westchester County, and then decide upon appropriate protective actions. They can shelter-in-place for one week, after which they would need both food and fuel. There was no hazard-specific training for the staff, or for family protection plans. In the event of an incident and a resultant lock down, the staff would not be able to leave. The interviews did not elicit confidence that off-duty personnel would report for duty in the event of a significant event. Witt Report, ¶ 4.5.2.2, p. 71.

The Witt Report also found that are hundreds, and possibly thousands, of "Special Facilities

[that] Need to Plan for Emergencies at Indian Point" within the 10 and 50-mile emergency planning zones. Special facilities are any facilities that house populations that are either harder to warn, harder to-protect, or more vulnerable to the health effects from exposure. They include day care centers, schools, universities, correctional facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, and assisted care living facilities. Witt Report, ¶11.2.2.2, p. 234. Given the health and mobility issues at these special facilities, evacuation for the disabled population is extremely problematic.

In addition to the evidence from the Witt Report, there is every reason to believe that prison evacuation would be extremely problematic in the event of a radiological emergency and low priority. Historically, and today, convicted criminals are treated as poorly as any class of people in our society, and there is little reason to think our society would make prisoners a priority in the event of radiological event, or evacuation.

The experience following the Katrina Hurricane in New Orleans 2005 provides stark evidence of what might happen in the event of a radiological event, an evacuation, or even a perceived scare, from Indian Point. In Abandoned & Abused: Orleans Parish Prisoners in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina, the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, reported on what happened to prisoners during Katrina. According to the report's Executive Summary:

During the storm, and for several days thereafter, thousands of men, women, and children were abandoned at [Orleans Parish Prison (OPP)]. As 'floodwaters rose in the OPP buildings, power was lost, arid entire buildings were plunged into darkness. Deputies left their posts wholesale, leaving behind prisoners in locked cells, some standing in sewage-tainted water up to their chests. Over the next few days, without food, water, or ventilation, prisoners broke windows in order to get air, and carved holes in the jail's walls in an effort to get to safety. Some prisoners leapt into the water, while others made signs or set fire to bed sheets and pieces of clothing to signal to rescuers. Once freed from the buildings, prisoners were bused to receiving facilities around the state, where, for some, conditions only got worse. At the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center, thousands of OPP evacuees spent several days on a large outdoor field, where prisoner-on-prisoner violence was rampant and went unchecked by correctional officers. From there, 'prisoners went to other facilities, where some were subjected to systematic abuse and racially motivated assaults by prison guards.

21 Id. (http://www.aclu.org/prison/conditions/26414pub20060809.html: visited November 23, 2007).

Unfortunately, there is no reason to expect that consequences would be any better for the tens of thousands of minority and low-income people in the dozens of prisons within 50 miles of Indian Point. Many of the immobile people with disabilities in the many special facilities in the region might not fare much better. At the very least, the Final Supplemental EIS should consider the impacts upon these communities.

v. Environmental justice concerns relating to production and long-term storage of Indian Point's Fuel, especially upon Native American populations.

This is discussed in greater detail below in Clearwaters comments relating to the uranium fuel cycle.

vi. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Must Address the Impacts on the Disabled and Institutionalized Populations in the Region.

The GEIS and the NRC Staffs DSEIS completely ignore the potential impacts upon the significant population of disabled and institutionalized individuals affected by the Indian Point relicensing proceeding. The relicensing of Indian Point places institutionalized individuals including children, seniors and veterans at risk.

Within 50 miles of Indian Point there are numerous hospitals, residential rehabilitation centers, assisted living or nursing homes, and New York State Office of Mental Health facilities.

According to the New York State Department of Health (DOH), there are 16 hospitals in Westchester and a total of 80 in the counties in New York State within 50 miles of Indian Point.

The DOH lists 45 nursing homes in Westchester County alone and a total of 197 nursing homes in the counties in New York State within 50 miles Indian Point as defined by Entergy in the ER Fig. 2-4. In addition, the DOH lists 25 adult care facilities in Westchester County and a total of 116 in the counties within 50 miles of Indian Point. There are 15 state mental health treatment facilities listed bye the New York State Office of Mental Health within 50 miles of Indian Point.

The Office of Real Property Services data for 2006 reflect the presence of one hospital (Hudson Valley Hospital in the Town of Cortlandt Manor with 635 beds) and at least nine retirement residences or nursing homes within 10 miles of the IP facility. In addition, Helen Hayes Hospital is a rehabilitation facility with 155 beds that treats special needs patients including those who have suffered traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. Finally, the New York State Veterans' Home at Montrose with 252 beds is located approximately 3 miles from Indian Point.

Other institutional facilities affected by the relicensing of Indian Point include Blythedale Childrens Hospital and Burke Rehabilitation Center. Blythedale Childrens Hospital, a hospital specializing in treatment for coma recovery, traumatic brain injury and other forms of rehabilitation treatment has 92 beds located within 20 miles from Indian Point. Burke Rehabilitation Center with 150 beds is 24 miles from Indian Point and treats patients with brain

22 or spinal cord injury, neurological conditions, knee or hip replacements and amputations. These are but a few examples of the facilities that are affected by the renewal of Indian Points licenses.

The DSEIS failed to consider the many immobile people with disabilities and other institutionalized individuals in special facilities in the region who would be adversely affected by the renewal of the Indian Point licenses. At the very least, the Final Supplemental EIS should consider the impacts upon these disabled and institutionalized populations.

vii. The Final Supplemental Impact Statement Must Address the Impact on Employment for the Economic Justice Communities and the Low-Income Populations.

Although the DSEIS provides information relating to the number of employees employed at Indian Point, the DSEIS fails to adequately and accurately address the impact of renewing IPs licenses on EJ communities and low-income populations. In fact, the DSEIS fails to provide a breakdown of its employees' racial and economic composition so that the full impact of IPs license renewals can be assessed. In addition, the DSEIS fails to provide data relating to a comparison of the number of jobs that would be gained or lost by members of the EJ community and low-income populations in its discussion of No-Action Alternatives. Moreover, as discussed in Section D below, the DSEIS fails to consider wind, solar and other renewable forms of energy as viable, which leads to an insufficient and incomplete assessment of the employment opportunities for the EJ communities and low-income populations if the No Action Alternative is chosen.

In the DSEIS, NRC states that the facility employs 1,255 employees. Unfortunately, although the NRC Staff does provide a breakdown of the communities that employees reside in they do not provide us with a breakdown the percentage of employees that are a part of EJ communities or low-income populations. As such, the DSEIS does not adequately assess the impact on the EJ communities or low-income population. Regardless, it is clear that over the course of decommissioning of Indian Point many of these 1,255 jobs would be lost; that however is not the end of the story. As claimed in the ER the electricity generated by IP would need to be replaced, and we agree that closing Indian Point would require energy conservation and efficiency measures, and at least some replacement power. The generation of electricity from other sources, as well as conservation and efficiency measures, would have an impact on the environment and on the EJ communities and low-income population. Clearly, many jobs would be created through increasing alternative generation, and from conservation and efficiency measures -likely many more than would be lost be closing Indian Point. Any environmental impact review should address these impacts on the local minority and low-income populations.

As discussed in section D below, the electricity generated by IP can be offset with energy efficiency and conservation, and with alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy, which the DSEIS fails to adequately assess. There is ample proof that switching to renewable sources of energy creates jobs and strengthens a local economy.

Therefore, the No-Action Alternative is likely to create more jobs for the EJ community and the low-income population than are currently found at IP.

23 An increase in wind generation has been proven to create new jobs. The European Wind Energy Association estimates that for every Megawatt of installed wind capacity 60 person-years of employment are created.7 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA),

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconDev.PDF. Replacing IPs 2,158 MWe with wind would therefore create 129,480 person-years of employment. In addition, Germany has created 250,000 jobs by shifting to wind energy.8 Wind of Change, Mirror, by Jake Morris and Mike Swain, June 27, 2008. Great Britain is aiming at installing 7,000 turbines over the next 12 years and expects to create 160,000 green collar jobs as a result of these installations. Id. The Renewable Energy Policy Project estimated that if the U.S. increases wind capacity by 8 times the current

level, 150,000 manufacturing jobs would be created.

AWEA, http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt economy.html.

By pursuing an energy policy calling for increased use of renewable energy, Pennsylvania has benefited by creating 1,000 manufacturing jobs and $100,000,000.00 in investments into the states economy. Statement of Kathleen McGinty, Secretary of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection, Review of the Financial Structure of Renewable Energy Sources, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives 110th Congress, First Session, March 7, 2007, Serial No. 110-03. The $100,000,000 in investments into the economy of the state is far greater than that invested by Entergy into the state of New York.

An increase in energy generated by solar has also been shown to increase employment.

According to the Renewable Energy Policy Project, each Megawatt hour of solar capacity creates 69,650 labor hours or 36 person years of labor.

http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/LABOR_FINAL_REV.pdf. The jobs created include positions for clerical, processing, machine trades, bench work and structural work, jobs usually performed by members of an EJ community or low-income population. Some of the jobs would be available at already established businesses that can supply the components for renewable energy. Indeed, there already exist 73 firms in Westchester and 298 total firms in a 50 mile radius that are currently active in the industrial sectors that would supply the components for increased production of solar energy.

Germany provides a great example of the potential of use of solar energy. In Germany there are currently 45,000 jobs in the solar industry and this number is expected to double in the next 5 years and reach 200,000 by 2020. Cloudy Germany Unlikely Hotspot for Solar Power, Reuters, July 30, 2007. http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKL2389939520070730.

There is every reason to believe that by replacing Indian Point with energy efficiency and safe, 7 A person-year of employment means one person is employed full-time for one year.

8 Germanys population is 82,431,390 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. According to the ER, 16,791,654 people reside within 50 miles of IP. As such, the population of Germany is 20% larger than found in the 50 miles surrounding IP and it would be expected that the number of jobs created in Germany would be about 20% more than the number of jobs that would be created 50 miles surrounding Indian Point i.e., 50,000 jobs. Even if the number of jobs created in Germany were 10 times greater than would be created here the number of jobs created would still be approximately 5,000 jobs.

24 renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar in the 50 miles surrounding Indian Point would result in increases in employment similar to those outlined above. It would also be expected that the EJ communities and low-income population would benefit from these new jobs. In fact several organizations are already working with EJ and low-income communities to provide them with access to jobs in the renewable energy industry. In Dutchess County, Clearwater is currently working with EJ communities and low-income populations to help these groups transition to green jobs in the renewable energy and clean tech industries. In addition, several other organizations in the Bronx (such as Sustainable South Bronx and Green Worker Cooperatives) are working with EJ communities and low-income populations to provide these groups with the training and competitive advantage to allow them to benefit from the increased job openings for the growing renewable energy and clean tech industries.

Clearly, the above data shows that the NRC Staff did not fully and adequately assess of the impact of the No Action Alternative. The Final Supplemental EIS must address the employment impact of the EJ communities and low-income populations and provide amore thorough and accurate assessment than found in the DSEIS.

viii. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Must Address the Environmental Justice Concerns Relating to Production and Long Term Storage of Indian Point's Fuel, especially upon Native American Populations.

The GEIS and the NRC Staffs DSEIS (The Uranium Fuel Cycle - 6.1) completely ignore the potential impacts upon EJ communities from lifecycle impacts on the production, use and storage of radioactive fuel, especially Native American people, who are disproportionately impacted by mining and manufacture of nuclear fuel and targeted to store massive, amounts of radioactivity. Because the GEIS did not assess this topic, the NRC Staff must provide an accurate and adequate assessment.

Demand for nuclear fuel from the Indian Point plants contributes towards the heavy impact of mining, manufacture and storage of radioactive materials on Native American communities.

Clearwater's concerns about the impact, of the nuclear fuel cycle on Native American communities are cogently expressed in a talk by Professor Karl Grossman, presented to the Institute of American Indian Arts, Santa Fe, New Mexico (November 29, 2006)(Republished as Native Nations and the Nuclear Cycle, http://www.shundahai.org/NativeNationsandtheNuclearCycle.htm) Professor Grossman pointed out the significant impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle on Native American populations:

Native Americans and indigenous people from around the world have been especially hard-hit by uranium mining and other aspects of the so-called nuclear fuel cycle. I noted that with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: approval, Sequoyah Fuel Corporation deliberately channels out 8 million gallons annually of its radioactive waste as a liquid fertilizer it calls 'raffinate.' The company sells the fertilizer, and also uses it on 10,000 surrounding acres where cattle graze and where hay and corn are grown for feed."

... I wrote about interviewing Lance Hughes, director of Native Americans for a Clean Environment in Talequah, Oklahoma, and in speaking of "unusual cancers" and birth defects from "genetic mutation" in the area, Hughes said: "It's pretty sad babies born without eyes, with brain' cancers." Wildlife is also born deformed. Said Hughes, "We

25 found a nine legged frog, a two-headed fish and a four-legged chicken."... As for the last stage of the nuclear fuel cycle somehow safeguarding nuclear waste endlessly as Winona LaDuke, an Ojibwe (who ran for vice president of the U.S. in 1996 and 2000 on the Green Party ticket), who lives and works on the White Earth Nation in Minnesota, has said: "The greatest minds in the nuclear establishment have been searching for an answer to the radioactive waste problem for 50 years and they've finally got one: haul it down a dirt road and damp it on an Indian reservation." Some 60 Indian communities have been "directly targeted by the nuclear power establishment" to be waste dumps, notes the Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Id.

With regard to the Environmental Justice impact of manufacturing nuclear fuel, Dr. Robert Bullard, professor of sociology at Clark Atlanta University and one of the leading authorities in the nation regarding environmental justice, notes:

Grassroots groups are making sure that government agencies do the right thing. On May 1, 1997, after eight years of litigation, Citizens Against Nuclear Trash or CANT won a favorable court decision from the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The three-judge panel concluded that "racial bias played a role in the selection process" and denied a permit from Louisiana Energy Services to build a uranium enrichment plant in the middle of Forest Grove and Center Springs, Louisiana---

two black communities that date back to the 1860's and 1910, respectively. The decision was upheld on appeal on April 4, 1998. (Environmental Justice: Strategies for Creating Healthy and Sustainable Communities http-//www.law.mercer.edu/elaw/rbullard.htm)

Environmental Justice concerns require that the Final Supplemental EIS address the impact of how Indian Point will obtain nuclear fuel and dispose of nuclear waster in a manner that is consistent with the health of Native American communities.

IV. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Must Thoroughly Address Energy Conservation and Efficiency, the Use of Alternative Sources of Energy, Especially the Use of Renewable Sources of Energy, and Combinations of Alternatives.

The NRC Staffs DSEIS fails to fully and accurately assess New York State's ability to generate its energy from renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, the impact on the environment of generating electricity from renewable sources, the impact of energy efficiency and conservation, or the impact of a Combination of Alternatives. In fact, although it provides a detailed description of coal, natural gas and nuclear as alternatives, DSEIS completely dismisses the viability of renewable energy, or of energy efficiency and conservation or a Combination of Alternatives, and fails to discuss how these options are integral parts of New York States energy future but are also currently used throughout the world.

A sustainable energy portfolio of energy efficiency and an array of renewables (solar, wind, geothermal) is the alternative to the nuclear power produced by this increasingly failing facility.

Currently, there is 33 GWs of installed capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources and in 2007 renewable energy accounted for over 35% of all new capacity installations in the

26 U.S. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/maps_data/pdfs/eere_databook_091208.pdf. Investment of infrastructure into more sustainable, fossil-fuel free sources of electrical generation by 2013 and for the 20 years thereafter will be substantial. These must be reliably estimated and evaluated in the Final Supplemental EIS.

Significantly, the power generated by IP can be replaced by renewable sources such as solar and wind on their own. The energy generated from IP can be replaced by electricity generated by wind. Generation of electricity from wind is the fastest growing source of energy generation and energy experts believe that wind energy will play a major role in world energy portfolios as we move into the future. Berry, Lauren Duke Energy Invest in Wind Power, The Charlotte Observer, June 27, 2008, Final Ed. In addition, energy experts predict a ten-fold increase in world installed wind capacity by 2020. Orchison, Keith Wind Doing Well, but not Without Hurdles from the Sustainable Investments-Special Report Business and Environment Series, The Australian, June 28, 2008. The industry is growing quickly as countries around the world push to increase their installed wind capacity. Id. and Global Wind Energy Council Press Release Global Wind Energy Markets Continue to Boom-2006 Another Record Year.

If IPs licenses are not renewed, the energy it generates can be offset by renewable energy sources by 2015. Indeed, Denmark already generates 20% of its electricity from wind.

The U.S. is also increasing its installed wind capacity. Since 2004, U.S. installed wind capacity has grown 29% a year. In 2007, 35% of all new electricity generation developed in the U.S. was from wind farms. In 2007, installed wind power capacity increased 46% and $9 billion was invested in new plants. Dibenedetto, Bill Energy Department Seeks to Boost Wind Energy, The Shipping News, June 30, 2008. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) predicts that the industry will grow through the year 2025. Report by United States Government Accountability (GAO) to the Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate Renewable Energy: Wind Powers Contribution to Electric Power Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities GAO-04-756, Sept. 2004 Office, p. 5.

The DSEIS also fails to fully and accurately assess the current potential for the use of solar energy to meet consumer demands for energy and the environmental impact of the use of solar.

First, Entergy states that solar power is not a viable option for the generation of energy. Solar radiation is the most abundant resource for the generation of electricity. In fact, each year the Earth receives 350,000,000 Terawatt hours of solar radiation. On the other hand, Uranium supplies are much more limited with only 1,500,000 Terawatt hours of Uranium 235 remaining on the planet.

Professor Richard

Perez, SUNY

Albany, http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/planet3.jpg. Currently, solar power generation is viable and is used throughout the U.S. and the world, most notably in Germany, a country that has more cloudy days than are typical for New York in a year.9 9 It is estimated that Germany has clouds covering its sky during two-thirds of its daylight hours. A comparison of Berlin and New York City showed that New York City is capable of producing 1.5 kWh per square meter more than Berlin is capable of generating. Prof. Richard Perez, Is There Really Enough Sun in the Empire State, Solar New York, May 14, 2007, http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/2007/richard-perez-solar-new-york-2007.pdf

27 The City of New York has the potential to generate three to four times more electricity with solar alone than is currently generated by Indian Point. According to the City of New York, PlaNYC website, New York City is capable of generating from 6,000 MW to over 15,000 MW.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/energy_renewable.shtml. This assertion is supported by a study by the CUNY Center for Sustainable Energy. It estimates that New York Citys potential for solar energy is somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000mW. Solar and the City by Wilson Rickerson, Lara Ettenson, Tom Marrott, and Tria Case, Renewable Energy Focus, Sept./Oct 2007.

Second, only 0.75% of New York States land is needed to generate all of the energy needed for New York State from solar energy. http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/2007/richard-perez-solar-new-york-2007.pdf There are also studies that show that solar can be generated from on top of already existing structures such as buildings and parking areas. In fact according to Professor Perez, the 9823 acres of parking lots (all within the 50 miles that surround Indian Point) could immediately be used to place 2947 MW into the system -- over 700 more MWs than produced by IP. http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/2006/parkings.pdf. It should be noted that this amount could be immediately placed into the current grid system, without any upgrades to the system. Id. Finally, studies have found that there is enough roof space in New York City to provide power to all of New York State.

Additionally, New York State is increasing its capacity to produce component parts for solar power generation. Earlier this year the Empire State Development Corp announced a deal to provide hydropower in Western New York to a new facility to produce approximately 30,000 tons of metallurgical grade silicon annually and the ability to convert that metallurgical grade silicon into 4000 tons of Solar Grade silicon -- enough to produce 500 MW of solar power.

http://www.empire.state.ny.us/press/press_display.asp?id=936. Thus, providing the source materials for the production of solar panels needed to generate power to replace Indian Point.

Next, the DSEIS fails to adequately and accurately assess energy efficiency and conservation as alternatives to the electricity generated by IP. Significantly, the DSEIS concludes that conservation could only replace IP in conjunction with other alternatives. This is not accurate.

Several studies have found that through conservation and energy efficiency the need for the electricity generated by IP can be eliminated.

The conclusion that conservation and energy efficiency must be in combination with other alternatives is also contrary to the analysis the Staff provided in its GEIS. In the GEIS, the NRC finds that "[a] wide variety of conservation technologies could be could be considered as alternatives to generating electricity at current nuclear plants." Moreover, "the GEIS assumes that conservation technologies produce enough energy savings to permit the closing of a nuclear plant. Should a nuclear plant be closed, the environmental gain, in terms of avoided environmental impacts, would be discussed in Section 8.3). The NRC Staff fails to adequately and accurately assess these conservation technologies i.e., energy efficiency and conservation as required by the GEIS.

The use of conservation as a means of replacing the electricity generated by the Indian Point has been thoroughly assessed by Charles Komanoff in Securing Power Through Conservation and

28 Efficiency in New York.

May, 2002, www.riverkeeper.org/document.php/39/2002 May__Koman.pdf (Securing Power). (Clearwater adopts Securing Power as stated fully herein.) Significantly, the Report concludes that "the central estimate of the conservation saving is just over 2,000 megawatts... almost exactly the amount of electricity generated by IP. It is important to note that as Securing Power is now over 6 years old and conservation technologies are advancing rapidly, the finding in Securing Power may be outdated and current levels of savings may be greater than found by Mr. Komanoff. In addition, the DSEIS completely ignores the National Academy of Sciences study Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs which was release in 2006 and concluded that IP is replaceable and New York has a ready supply of alternative energy sources at its disposal. It is therefore extremely important to perform an up to date analysis of conservation and energy efficiency technologies in the site specific EIS.

Finally, the DSEIS fails to adequately and accurately assess a Combination of Alternatives as a replacement for IP. The DSEIS completely fails to consider a combination of alternatives that is one hundred percent based on generation from renewable sources. Instead both alternatives include the use of at least a 330 MW gas fired plant. This is not adequate. A Combination of Alternatives that must be assessed is one that contains an array of renewable sources along with a program for conservation and energy efficiency. This assessment must be made in the Final Supplemental EIS.

Under NRC guidelines, a site-specific Environmental Impact Statement alternative must include electric generation sources that are technically feasible and commercially viable." As outlined above and is abundantly clear from surveying worldwide electrical generation, wind, solar and geothermal are all technically feasible and commercially viable. Clearly, the above data shows that the NRC Staffs DSEIS did not fully and adequately assess renewable energy as alternative to IP or provide an accurate assessment of the environmental impact of renewable energy. The NRC must perform a more thorough and accurate analysis of not only the capability to currently generate power from renewable sources in New York, the U.S, and worldwide, but also the remarkable growth that those industries are expected to achieve over the course of the 20 year license for each IP 2 and IP3.

The Final Supplemental EIS must address these and other renewable energy alternatives in the No Action Alternative.

V. Clearwaters Assessment of the DSEIS Conclusions and Recommendations (9.3):

Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS, (2) the ER submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the NRC staffs consideration of public scoping comments received, and (5) the NRC staffs independent review, the preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.

p. 9-8.

29 While Clearwater understands the value of exploring this option, however to finalize the SEIS, NRC staff must obtain or require more recent and in some cases more comprehensive studies to adequately assess the impacts of the proposed twenty year relicensing. These include:

Human health studies, including follow up of preliminary assessments that indicate increased levels of thyroid cancer and childhood leukemia in people living closer to the plant; also a study of breast milk of human mothers living within a 50-mile radius of the plant; New York States plans to do additional sampling to assess the source and uptake of strontium-90 and other radioactive isotopes in fish, crabs and other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife (p.2-109), promised over a year ago by NYS DEC officials.

Updated assessments of declining fish populations, including current impingement/entrainment data and the required triaxial thermal study, especially with regard to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, which will require defining the extant and magnitude of the thermal plume created by Indian Points once-through systems.

Potential Environmental Justice impacts, especially on communities of Peekskill, Haverstraw and West Haverstraw In addition, both the NRC staff and the applicant will need to:

consider the transport of radioactive isotopes and other contaminants in water and sediment in this estuarine setting, and study the potential impacts of planned and unplanned discharges of radioactivity into the Hudson River on the proposed Rockland County desalination plant and the five other drinking water intakes in the tidal Hudson.

It is unclear how these studies will actually get done. Recommendations and promises are distinct from actual investigations. NRC staff should take leadership, provide follow up and clarify to the public how this will occur.

Finally, we believe it was unreasonable to release the quantity of information contained in both the DSEIS and the SER and require comments on both to filed at the same time. This places an undo burden on individuals or groups with limited resources. An extra two weeks to review the SER would have provided the NRC staff with more information and constructive criticism, which would have ultimately benefited then entire relicensing process.

Respectfully submitted by:

Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

Ross Gould, Esq., Member, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

March 18, 2009