ML17188A324
| ML17188A324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/2017 |
| From: | Talbot M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| Burton W, NRR-DLR | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17188A200 | List: |
| References | |
| 80FR81377 00004, NRC-2008-0672 | |
| Download: ML17188A324 (2) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION D oc k e t: NRC-2008-0672 Page 1of1 As of: 2/5/1 6 1: 29 PM Re ce i ve d: February 04 , 2016 S tatu s: Pending_Post Tr a ckin g No. lk0-8nrx-z85q C omment s Du e: March 04, 2016 S ubmi ss ion T y p e: Web Environmental Impact Statement; Availability , etc.: Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Bu chanan , NY; License Renewa l and P ub l ic Meeting C omm e nt On: NRC-2008-0672-0029 Entergy Nuclear Operations , Inc.; Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Sta t ement; Req u est for Comment Docum e nt: NRC-2008-06 7 2-DRAFT-0024 Comment on FR Doc# 2015-32777 Submitter Information N am e: Kath l een Talbot General Comment . I * 'f v N w I am concerned abo ut t h e expanded natura l gas pipeline cutting so close to the IP facility even though a much smaller version has been t h ere for some time. The 42" new line will be pushing gas through using high pressure increasing the risk factor significantly.
In addition I am concerned that the plant is aging and I haven't seen a workable p l an to dismantle it keeping it safe for those of us who live in the vicinity as well as the entire metropo l itan area. I think we m u st take seriously immed i ately moving to renewa b le energy sources and t o do all we can to support the governor in his goal of making the state significantly l ess fossil fuel and n u clear energy dependent by 2030. Top_ 1 O _Reasons_toC l ose _IndianPoint SUNSI Review Complete Template=
ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Attachments Add= /JJ-fa/&<J /oio /6-g;--o FJ{ <g I :3 77 CJ) https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent
?objectld=090000648le5lfd1
&format=xm l&showorig=false 02/05/2016 Top Ten Reasons to Close Indian Point 10. Nowhere to put Indian Point's highly-radioactive spent fuel -IP's storage pools are already overfilled with spent fuel rods from the last 40 years of operations. The spent fuel pools are also leaking radioact i ve water into the ground and the Hudson River. 9. Two different earthquake fault lines cross just north of Indian Point , leading Columbia University to conclude that Indian Point i s in pretty much the worst locat i on for a nuke plant in the NY metro area. 8. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(" NRC") revised its estimates of earthquake risk in 2010 , conclud in g that Indian Point is the most likely nuke plant in the nation to experience core damage due to an earthquake.
NRC higher ups say this is " not a serious concern" and won't do further studies until 2012. 7. Indian Po in t: don't worry -we can handle up to a 6.1 magnitude earthquake. Columb i a University called a 7 .0 quake " quite possible." 6. Indian Point has been granted so many exemptions from safety rules in the last ten years that an NRC spokesman says he couldn't possibly recount them all. To help jog NRC's memory -it has relaxed requirements for insulation on electrical cables controlling the reactors; reduced inspection requirements on ru s ting containment domes and leaking spent fuel pools , extended deadl i nes for equipment designed to prevent sabotage , etc. 5. A New Y o rk State report on the evacuation plan for Indian Point concluded that the plan is based on shaky assumptions and won't protect the public in the event of a real emergency.
A subsequent federal study also found serious problem areas , especially in connection with the risk of attack on the spent fuel pools. Indian Point's response:
" it's a very good plan." 4. Ind i an Po i nt's evacuation plan only covers people living within ten miles from the plant. While NRC has told Americans living 50 miles from Fukushima to evacuate , it has not ordered Indian Point to prepare plans for a similar evacuation in case of an emergency i n our area. Indian Point says any talk of a 50-mile evacuat ion plan here is " completely premature." Twenty million Americans in three states live w it hin 50 miles of Indian Point. 3. We don't even really need the juice. Indian Po i nt represents 12.5% of the electr i city generating capacity in downstate New York. California conserved more than that in six months. If they can do it, we can too. 2. New York City's most important drinking water reservoir lies fifteen miles from Indian Point. Nine million people depend on the safety of that water supp l y every day. 1. If we don't do someth ing, Indian Point could operate for another 40 years. Its original 40-year licenses are just about up and NRC says it sees no reason not to grant renewals.
NRC , our only nuclear watchdog , refused to consider earthquake risk or evacuation problems during the Indian Po i nt relicensing process. A leading nuclear physicist and former White House staffer calls NRC a " textbook case" of what happens when the industry gains control of a regulatory agency. Indian Point is old, dangerous and near more people than any other nuke plant in the country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given Indian Point more safety waivers than it can remember and its own data shows IP poses the greatest risk of reactor core damage due to earthquake in the country. There's no plan for evacuating people in the danger zone. It's time for President Obama to act. Deny the license renewals for Indian Point and close it now! For more information , or to become a member , please contact us at: Riverkeeper , 20 Secor Road , Ossining , NY 10562 , (800) 21-RIVER , (914) 478-4501 in fo@riverkeeper
.org , www.riverkeeper
.org