Comment (4) of John J. Sipos on Behalf of State of Ny, Office of the Attorney General, on Draft Supplement to Supplement 38 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear| ML12235A409 |
| Person / Time |
|---|
| Site: |
Indian Point  |
|---|
| Issue date: |
08/20/2012 |
|---|
| From: |
Sipos J
State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
|---|
| To: |
Cindy Bladey
Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
|---|
| References |
|---|
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, 77FR40091 00004, NUREG-1437 S38 V4 NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 4 |
| Download: ML12235A409 (7) |
|
|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML22119A0112021-12-31031 December 2021
Comment (42) of Sierra Club, Lower Hudson Group on Holtec'S Decommissioning Plan for Indian Point
ML21299A1592021-10-26026 October 2021
Comment (35) of Theresa Knickerbocker on Comments on NRC Public Meeting on the Holtec PSDAR
ML21295A2342021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (28) of Susan Van Dolsen on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A0302021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (25) of Pete Harckham on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1522021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (4) of Courtney M. Williams on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A7252021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (31) of Courtney M. Williams on Behalf of Safe Energy Rights Group on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A4032021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (29) of Mary Finneran Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A7242021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (30) of Dan Galinko on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1692021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (39) of Bonnie Webber on Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1622021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (36) of Catherine Skopic on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1672021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (37) of Ellen Weininger on Behalf of Grassroots Environmental Educational on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1572021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (34) of Michel Lee on Docket Id NRC-2021-0125. Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR)
ML21295A7262021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (32) of Doug Couchon on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1682021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (38) of Richard Webster on Behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc., on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21294A3752021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (24) of Jacquelyn Drechsler and Jocelyn Decrescenzo on Indian Point Regarding the Casks and Canisters for Containment of Radioactive Nuclear Waste
ML21294A0762021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (21) of J. Mullee of Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21294A3032021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (23) of Pete Harckham on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1562021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (33) of Alyse Peterson on Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A2322021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (27) of Jeff Schumann on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A0322021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (26) of Sandy Galef on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML22119A0102021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (41) of Laura Burkhardt on Decommissioning of Indian Point
ML21293A2082021-10-20020 October 2021
Comment (20) of Nivo Rovedo on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A2072021-10-20020 October 2021
Comment (19) of Patrick Hewes on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A2052021-10-19019 October 2021
Comment (18) of Patrick Hewes on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A1162021-10-17017 October 2021
Comment (3) of T. Reidsr on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A2002021-10-15015 October 2021
Comment (17) of Benjamin Boykin, Alfreda A. Williams Et. Al. on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21286A7622021-10-10010 October 2021
Comment (16) of Daria Gregg on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5562021-10-0505 October 2021
Comment (11) of John Spring on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21278A8672021-10-0505 October 2021
Comment (15) of Marsha Upton on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5582021-10-0101 October 2021
Comment (12) of Kale Roberts on Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5632021-09-22022 September 2021
Comment (14) of Marilyn Mitchell on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5592021-09-12012 September 2021
Comment (13) of Amy Mott on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5552021-09-0505 September 2021
Comment (10) of Madeleine Glick on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21243A4392021-08-23023 August 2021
Comment (2) of J. M. Singletary on Behalf of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning
ML21218A0922021-08-0505 August 2021
Comment (9) of Catherine Skopic on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21218A0912021-08-0404 August 2021
Comment (8) of Dale Saltzman on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21215A3282021-08-0101 August 2021
Comment (7) of Marie Inserra on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21211A0772021-07-29029 July 2021
Comment (7) of Stephen Kent on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21215A3272021-07-29029 July 2021
Comment (6) of Stephen Kent on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21210A1462021-07-28028 July 2021
Comment (06) of Linda D. Puglisi on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21215A3302021-07-28028 July 2021
Comment (1) of Linda D. Puglisi on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1332021-07-23023 July 2021
Comment (3) of Buddy Buchanan on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1352021-07-23023 July 2021
Comment (5) of Buddy Buchanan on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1342021-07-23023 July 2021
Comment (4) of Buddy Buchanan on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1312021-03-0101 March 2021
Comment (1) of Herschel Specter on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML19108A3062019-04-18018 April 2019
Comment (23) of Joan Vogt on Agency Activities in Response to a Portion of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act
ML18192B9652018-07-0808 July 2018
Comment (108) of Jacuelyn Drechsler Opposing Draft Letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding the Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies
ML17188A3332017-07-0707 July 2017
Public Comments on Indian Point License Renewal L11 - Comment of Andrew Raddant on Behalf of Us Department of Interior
ML17188A3392017-07-0707 July 2017
Public Comments on Indian Point License Renewal L14 - Comment of Susan Shapiro on Behalf of Phase
ML17188A3382017-07-0707 July 2017
Public Comments on Indian Point License Renewal L13 - Comment of John Sipos
2021-09-05
[Table view] |
Text
4~2~ ~ jc9t9/~2 14 ~2ti2j~)
6k,.
STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN DIVISION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU Cindy Bladey August 20, 2012 Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Draft Supplement to Supplement 38 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Draft Report for Comment dated June 26, 2012 NUREG-1437; Supplement 38, Vol. 4; 77 Fed. Reg. 40091 (July 6, 2012)
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR/50-286-LR
Dear Ms. Bladey:
Enclosed please find comments submitted by the State of New York Office of the Attorney General concerning NRC Staff's draft supplemental environmental impact statement.
All citations and references mentioned in the comments are hereby incorporated by reference. Should NRC Staff have difficulty obtaining any such citations and references, they are requested to contact the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York for assistance. Please include these comments in the record for this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically)by John J. Sipos Assistant Attorney General (518) 402-2251 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov cc: I.ndianPoint.EIS(eiNRC.gov 2 THE CAPITOL, ALBANY, N.Y. 12224-0341
- FAX (518) 473- 2534 . WWW.AG.NY.GOV
/3 Q-.~-Y(&
COMMENTS BY THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO SUPPLEMENT 38 TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS, REGARDING INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENT DATED JUNE 26, 2012 NUREG-1437; SUPPLEMENT 38, VOL. 4; 77 FED. REG. 40091 (JULY 6, 2012)
DOCKET Nos. 50-247-LR!50-286-LR Submitted: August 20, 2012
Earlier this year, the State of New York wrote to NRC to express the State's concern about the narrow scope of NRC Staff's proposed supplemental review and revision of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the requested extension of the operating licenses for Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3. See March 28, 2012 letter from J. Sipos to S. Turk (NRC) ML12090A609. Recently, NRC Staff released a draft report for public comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Vol. 4 (June 26, 2012) ML12174A244. In a notice in the Federal Register, Staff requested comments by August 20, 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 40091 (July 6, 2012). The scope of the draft supplemental report remains far too narrow and is inconsistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality and NRC.
NRC Staff's EIS Should Include a Site Specific Examination of the Impacts of Severe Accidents on Water Resources, Including Drinking Water Resources, Within 50 Miles of Indian Point and the Alternatives to Mitigate Such Impacts NRC Staff prepared the draft report to examine information about environmental impacts of issuing renewed operated licenses to the Indian Point facilities on aquatic resources, but the supplemental review conducted by Staff examines only a narrow aspect of such impacts. The State previously requested that NRC Staff review the impacts of a severe accident on water resources, including drinking water resources. Such a review should include a thorough analysis of the value of such resources and the cost to decontaminate and remediate those resources, or provide replacement drinking water. Several reservoirs that provide drinking water resources for New York communities - including New York City - are located within 50 miles of the Indian Point facilities, yet NRC had not examined the environmental impacts that would result from a severe accident that deposited radionuclides into those water resources or the cost to
decontaminate or replace those resources. Nor has NRC Staff examined alternatives to mitigate such impacts. Thus, NRC Staff has failed to conduct an adequate site specific analysis of the environmental impacts of a severe accident at Indian Point on water resources.
NRC Staff's EIS Should Examine the Impact of Severe Accidents to the Spent Fuel Pools at Indian Point and the Alternatives to Mitigate Such Impacts Substantial amounts of spent nuclear fuel are contained in the spent fuel pools at Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3. Recently, Entergy representatives disclosed that Entergy intendeds to maintain current dense storage practices at Indian Point during any relicensing term granted by NRC. Specifically, during the May 8, 2012 site visit to the Indian Point facilities by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Entergy representatives made the following statements about Entergy's plans for spent nuclear fuel at Indian Point:
(A) All of the spent fuel generated during since the start of commercial operation of Indian Point Unit 3 remains in the Indian Point Unit 3 spent fuel pool (as of the date of the site visit) (stated differently, the Unit 3 spent fuel pool holds 36 years worth of spent nuclear fuel);
(B) Entergy has no current plans to construct an additional dry cask storage area (in addition to the existing dry cask storage area); and (C) At the end of operation under any 20-year extension of the current operating licenses, Entergy estimates that the existing dry cask storage area would be filled to capacity and that the Indian Point Unit 2 spent fuel pool and the Indian Point Unit 3 spent fuel pool would be filled to capacity as well.
NRC Staff has not examined alternatives to the continued dense storage of spent nuclear fuel in the Indian Point spent fuel pools.
NRC can no longer maintain that dry cask storage and densely packed spent fuel pools provide comparable long term storage options. The differences between the two storage methods are illustrated by the following chart reflects NRC's list of priorities five days into the
Fukushima disaster. The conditions at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3 were worse than that reached at any time during the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor accident, yet the NRC's higher priority was the Daiichi Unit 4 spent fuel pool.
'Fukushima Daiichi Summary Display Priority Unit STATUS AS OF 06:00 EDT (19:00 Local) - 03116/2011 Core Status - Severe core damage (based on the amount of hydrogen generated).
Radiation has been released. Possible RCS breach. (GE) Sea water injection to RPV.
4 .Containment - Primary apparently intact. Secondary Containment destroyed.
Spent Fuel Pool - No information on SFP status.
_
Core Status r Severe core damage likely. Radiation release has occurred. Possible RCS breach (GE). Sea water injection to RPV.
3 2 Containment - Primary apparently intact. Secondary Containment lost.
Spent Fuel Pool - No information on SFP status. Some reports attribute smokelsteam coming from the SFP.
Core Status - Severe core damaged (based on the amount of hydrogen generated).
Radiation has been released. Possible RCS breach. (GE). Sea water injection to 2 RPV.
Containment - Primary apparently intact. Secondary Containment destroyed, Spent Fuel Pool - May be in the same condition as Unit 4 SFP below. (Monninger)
Core off-loaded to Spent Fuel Pool. Secondary Containment destroyed. Walls of 4 SFP have collapsed., No SFP cooling is possible at this time., TEPCO requests recommendations, (Monninger)
Shutdown since January 3, 2011. Core loaded in RPV. RPV/SFP levels lower than 5 5 normal and decreasing. Unit 6 DIG providing make-up water to Unit 5. (IAEA).
Shutdown since August 14, 2010, Core loaded in RPV. RPV/SFP levels lower than normal. Unit 6 DIG providing make-up water to Unit 5. (IAEA).
Source: NRC ADAMS Accession No. ML12080A196 (frame 259 of 782) (placed on public ADAMS on March 23, 2012) (highlight added). Moreover, there were concerns about radiation releases from the fuel rods in the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. Id. (frame 252 of 782 ("Rad release -
possible from SFP")). Not only was the Daiichi Unit 4 spent fuel pool a top NRC priority, but it appears that the Daiichi Unit 4 spent fuel pool was not as densely packed as the two spent fuel pools at Indian Point Unit 2 and Indian Point Unit 3. In contrast, the spent nuclear fuel stored in the dry cask storage facility at Fukushima Daiichi was not included in NRC's list of priorities.
NRC Staff's EIS Should Examine How the Federal Government and its Agencies Will Respond to Severe Accidents at Indian Point and Pay for the Decontamination of the New York Metropolitan Area Including its Water Resources The State previously raised concerns about the federal government's ability to respond to a severe accident at Indian Point. Although Entergy has asked NRC to issue two operating licenses for the Indian Point reactors, spent fuel pools, and attendant facilities, it not clear that NRC has the desire, capability, or financial resources to respond to a severe accident at Indian Point and ensure the thorough decontamination of the New York metropolitan area including, but not limited to, its water resources - and drinking water resources - in the wake of such an accident.
qS;;US R On Coni-oe' Ob~sevtos Power Point Presentation, Health Physics Society (Feb. 6, 2012).
Conclusion NRC Staff's supplemental review of the environmental impacts of the issuing 20 year operating licenses to Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 is far too narrow and inconsistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality and NRC. NRC should reopen its NEPA review of the requested operating licenses and conduct a comprehensive site specific analysis of the environmental impacts caused by severe accidents at Indian Point as well as the means and resources to mitigate such impacts.
John Sipos Assistant Attorney General State of New York