ML12264A017
| ML12264A017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/13/2012 |
| From: | Hart M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, RAS E-1265 | |
| Download: ML12264A017 (3) | |
Text
Do'cket, Hearing From:
Margaret A. Hart [marghart@a-znet.com]
Sent:
Thursday, September 13, 2012 5:39 PM To:
NRCREP Resource
Subject:
Response from "Comment on NRC Documents" Below is the result of your feedback form.
It was submitted by Margaret A. Hart (marghart(@a-znet.com) on Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 17:39:22 DocumentTitle:
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
2 and 3 (draft)
Comments: To the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, My name is Margaret Hart and I live in Central Square, NY.
I am writing to ask you not to approve Entergy's bid to re-license Indian Point's two nearly 40-year old nuclear power reactors when their operating licenses expire in 2013 and 2015.
Indian Point has a long history of radiation leaks and transformer explosions, and despite safety upgrades the plant has needed many safety exemptions from your agency just to be able to continue operating. Radiation leaks into the soil, water, and air poison the environment in a way which has been linked to an increased risk for certain cancers. In addition, the plant sits on top of two active fault lines, making the 40-year old designs and structures at risk during an earthquake. Data has indicated that reactor 3 is the most vulnerable to earthquake damage of all 104 operating nuclear power plants in the country.
Our area does not need the 2,000 megawatts of electricity Indian Point produces.
Documents show that this energy is now being used only as a backup to current need, with most production being sold out of market. There are already conservation plans, energy upgrades, and new sources planned to join the area's grid well in advance of 2015, which a new report' by NYS's Independent Systems Operator confirms will more than make up for Indian Point's production. For a cleaner, more sustainable future, NYS should continue to look toward renewable energy, which will create thousands of new jobs. A 2011 Columbia University study recently showed the great potential NYC has for solar rooftops to contribute to this effort.
There are so many other reasons this plant should be closed: more dangerous and poorly contained spent fuel than at Fukushima; an evacuation plan called "inadequate" by a 2003 report commissioned by then Gov. Pataki; billions of fish and larvae killed each year in the plant's water cooling process; inadequate fire safety and public address systems; and so many more. Please consider all these facts and do not approve Entergy's re-licensinp bid for DOCKETED Indian Point.
USNRC organization:
September 13, 2012 (5:39 p.m.)
addressl: 23 Collins Terrace OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF D'S-n 2
address2:
city: Central Square state: NY zip: 13036 country: United States phone: 315-439-8375 2
Docket, Hearing From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Importance:
NRCREP Resource Monday, September 17, 2012 4:16 PM Docket, Hearing Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents";
Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents";
Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents";
Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents"; Response from "Comment on NRC Documents" High These comments are for the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - Is the mail address correct? Please, let me know.
(comments for a hearing next month).
- Thanks, Doris 1