ML12261A065
| ML12261A065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/2012 |
| From: | Matsumoto M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-286-LR, RAS E-988 | |
| Download: ML12261A065 (2) | |
Text
Docket, Hearing
,'r-J(.L-7.Q From:
Margaret Matsumoto [matsul9@optonline.net]
Sent:
Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:49 PM To:
Docket, Hearing Cc:
anne.siamacki@nrc.gov
Subject:
Objections to renewal of Indian Point licenses/ Relicensing
Dear NRC members:
I am a resident of Westchester County and although I don't live in view of the Indian Point plant, I certainly live in its shadow.
I am against the renewal of any license for the plant. I am in favor of closing down the plant and aggressively pursuing other means of cost effective energy sources. I would also stand behind a plan to gradually transfer our energy production from Indian Point to another less hazardous solution over a period of time to lessen the objections from any quarter that it can't be done "just like that". I'd rather wait for an orderly transition in power production than wait for the half life of radioactive elements to degrade sufficiently after a nuclear "incident" to allow me to even consider being able to re-inhabit my home and my neighborhood. It would be an even longer wait to be able to drink fresh water and enjoy "field-to-table" fresh locally grown food.
I believe Entergy does not responsibly consider the widespread and extremely devastating consequences that would occur if there were to be a serious malfunction that caused meltdown or nuclear contamination of the area.
Other nuclear plants are in less populated areas, but few areas in the US are more densely populated and as economically crucial than the NY metropolitan area including NYC, just downstream of the plant. If a situation arises requiring mass evacuation, we would immediately grasp the utter ridiculousness of any existing evacuation plans.
I am not the least bit reassured by Entergy's periodic testing of their sirens. If I am stuck on a evacuation route with hundreds of thousands of other panicked Westchester residents, not to mention Manhattanites, or I am killed or injured in a nuclear explosion or lethally contaminated, I am not going to care if Entergy's sirens are working or not. In fact, I understand Entergy's warning systems regularly fail inspection standards. So much for reassuring the public that all is "safe, secure, and (can't remember the motto's 3rd part)."
It is a transparent attempt to put a positive public image on a potentially extremely hazardous situation and gloss over some very real safety issues that should be addressed in the plant and the way it operates RIGHT NOW.
Ofcourse, none of us thinks that these worst-case scenarios can happen. For example, in Japan, they had a wall to contain tsunami waves, they had warning sirens and evacuation plans which did help some of the population. However, the 2011 disaster obviously trumped any contingency plans they had to deal with a tsunami the size of the one that eventually devastated that whole region in Japan including the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Some of the workers at that plant sacrificed their lives to go back into the plant and try to contain the damage. i wonder how many Indian Point Entergy employees, faced with a similar situation; would be touting how glad they are for the jobs that Entergy provides them or how Entergy helps the local economy. I wouldn't worry as much about these worst case scenarios if I felt Entergy seriously looked at the safety equation. Every business is a risk vs. value equation, but I just don't see Entergy taking into account how huge the down side is for taking the risks they take with our safety and well-being. There is just no way they can guarantee our safety, not only due to the complexity of development (residential and commercial) and sheer number of the people living and working in the area, but also due to Entergy's dismal record of chronic safety violations and carelessness.
1
I feel like Entergy threatens us with higher energy prices if we ask to have Indian Point closed. Ofcourse consumers don't want to pay higher prices, myself included. However, we will pay an incredibly costly price, including human life, if we don't realize we are only buying the illusion we are "safe and secure" with our cheaper rates. Entergy tells us what we want to hear so that it can continue to do its business without any loss of profit. I would rather ask Energy to absorb some of its profit to REALLY ensure our safety. Close the nuclear plant and invest in alternative sources of energy that can be delivered to the same customers.
How can Entergy responsibly say their profits are more important than the welfare of so many people, the very people upon whom they depend upon for their business?
Even NY Governor Cuomo feels that closing the plant is the best solution for the common good and I'm sure he is sensitive to the fact that he is an elected official facing potential backlash from those that might lose jobs or income from secondary sources related to the plant being open. The common good. We must remember this! Entergy must find another way to serve the public or stop doing business. We as a public must also seriously look at our energy consumption and work to minimize our voracious demand for energy.
We all have to work on this. However I come to you because you have the decision-making power to grant Indian Point Nuclear Plant a new license or renew exisiting licenses. That is within your power.
Please decide in favor of the greatest good, and for the benefit of not only current but future generations.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Margaret Matsumoto 50 Rockledge Rd.,
Hartsdale, NY 10530 DOCKETED USNRC September 13, 2012(3:49 p.m.)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF 2