ML12262A019
| ML12262A019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/2012 |
| From: | Close M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Siarnacki A NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS E-1056 | |
| Download: ML12262A019 (2) | |
Text
A, S E=- 10 SIC Docket, Hearing From:
boo close [closefam4@aol.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 14, 2012 8:39 AM To:
Docket, Hearing; Siarnacki, Anne
Subject:
Fwd: CLOSE INDIAN POINT DOCKETED USNRC September 14, 2012 (8:39 a.m.)
Dear Ms. Siarnacki and NRC he officials; OFFICE OF SECRETARY N
earng RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF My friend, Amy Lipton has written a very compelling letter to you.
I agree with everything she has written. The 2nd paragraph regarding our kids (we have 2 boys, ages 17 and 15) and the Garrison schIooi parLicularly LesunaLes.
i was, in fact, for a few years a "card carrying" emergency driver, should the school buses be unable to transport our kids from the Garrison School to our designated shelter.
Just the idea is bone chilling. I have copied Amy's letter to you below, as it expresses my sentiments and the sentiments of my family so eloquently:
I am a resident of Garrison, NY and I live 9.5 miles from the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. I am writing to request that you give consideration to the unique realities of the risks presented by the Indian Point Nuclear Plant and withhold granting a new 20-year operating license.
Living with the potential danger of an aging nuclear power plant is not a happy scenario for anyone with school age children. Sending our daughter to elementary school for 8 years with an emergency back pack, and signing release forms for pills for the possible need of Ki pills to prevent thyroid cancer from radiation and having an evacuation plan handbook ready, is not a lifestyle choice that I bargained for when moving to this area. Despite this we have stayed in Garrison for the past 10 years, but the danger lingers and we continue to think about leaving this area and moving elsewhere should the plant stay open beyond it's legitimate life span, which is now.
The evacuation plan is unrealistic, as anyone that lives here is aware of. After extensive study, James Lee Witt, the former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, flatly declared Indian Point's evacuation plans "unworkable."
What's more, the evacuation plans cover just a 10-mile radius around the plant, when fallout could easily spread 50 miles or more.
As you know, the Indian Point Nuclear Plant sits amongst the highest population density of any nuclear plant in this country, with approximately 20,000,000 residents within 50-miles of the plant. New York is the financial capital of this country and much of the world. The property value alone within a 50-mile radius of Indian Point is multiple trillions of dollars, and the vast majority of New York City drinking water flows from reservoirs within 20-miles of Indian Point.
Imagine the chaos and imagine the impact on the US economy if Indian Point experienced the unexpected and had a major radiation release in the Hudson Valley. This would dwarf the financial impact of the attack on 9/11/2001. These elements highlight the enormous risks should the low probability, high impact event occur at this aging facility.
Indian Point is also a serious detriment to the health of our river and to its recreational use for fishing and swimming. More than 1 billion dead fish and other organisms, killed by Indian Point's cooling water intakes every year. Indian Point uses more than 2.5 billion gallons of water per day, sucking river life in with the water. Clean water laws require the use of the best available technology to reduce the environmental damage, but Indian Point's owners have refused - for decades - to upgrade to modem technology. The slaughter helps explain why 10 of 13 signature Hudson River species are in decline.
I am well aware that the relicensing regulations are tightly drawn, and contentions filed in opposition to relicensing have been dismissed as out of scope. To disregard the magnitude of risk in scenarios that are certainly not beyond feasibility is an abdication of the primary charge of the NRC - to protect public health and safety. Strictly adhering to regulations that are not all encompassing is similar to the 'just following orders" defense used and rejected at the Nuremburg trials. You must take responsibility for the decisions you render, even if they go beyond the imperfect regulatory standards. NRC has amended and granted exemptions from regulations that benefitted nuclear plant operators. You should be in the same position to be more inclusive in pursuit of public health and safety.
Further, the issue of long-term storage of high level nuclear wastes in the New York Metro area is still unresolved. As you are aware, regulations regarding separation of spent fuel assemblies in the storage pools have been amended to allow for dense packing that increases the likelihood that a loss of power or loss of water will result in a much larger release of radiation if the unexpected happens. The operators should be mandated to move all viable (i.e., sufficiently cooled) wastes to hardened dry cask storage to minimize the risk before any relicensing is approved. I am aware of the recent o1
directive that an EIS regarding long term storage for each plant must be prepared within two years, but the agency should expedite the return to design basis standards for spent fuel storage pool configuration. You may not be aware that the spent fuel storage at Indian Point has the same design of hydrogen vents that failed at Fukushima Dai-ichi. This is not a small concern and warrants preventative measures.
Finally, it should be noted that analysis of US CDC county by county data shows that the three counties that surround Indian Point - Westchester, Rockland and Putnam - all have statistically significantly higher thyroid cancer rates than the nation overall. Further, recent reports from both Germany and France indicate that childhood leukemia rates are elevated around nuclear power plants. Again, I ask that you act in the best interests of public health and safety by not recommending new licenses for Indian Point.
I also hope that you will refer to the recently issued NYISO 2012 Reliability Report that states unequivocally that Indian Point 2 can be retired at expiration of the current license with no impact on regional grid reliability, and that only under a high demand scenario at the time that IP3's license expires would there be a shortfall for reliability, and even then the shortfall would be 750MW if no additional capacity was available between now and then. Capacity could come from transmission upgrades, energy efficiency initiatives, demand response policies or additioanl generation.
The essential question becomes, why take the risks associated with Indian Point if the plant is not really necessary for the electrical grid?
Thank you for your consideration.
Amy Lipton Thank you PLEASE close down this dangerous plant.
Sincerely, Maureen Close 2