|
---|
Category:Legal-Intervention Petition
MONTHYEARML11257A1102011-09-14014 September 2011 Certificate of Service for Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention and for Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions ML11257A1092011-09-13013 September 2011 Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings ML11257A1112011-09-13013 September 2011 Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report ML11228A0302011-08-11011 August 2011 the State of New York and the State of Connecticut'S Joint Answer in Opposition to Entergy'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 ML11217A0662011-07-29029 July 2011 Applicant'S Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 ML11210B4192011-07-26026 July 2011 State of New York'S Response to Applicant'S Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Admissibility Rulings on Contentions NYS-17B and NYS-37 ML11179A0922011-06-21021 June 2011 Letter Regarding New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the Matter of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, License Renewals ML11133A2882011-04-29029 April 2011 Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, State Submittal of Letter to Bring Two Recent Documents to Attention of the Board and Parties in Connection with NYS Contention-25 ML11117A1462011-04-19019 April 2011 Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor Licensing Decisions and Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from Fukushima Dahchi Nuclear Power Station Accident ML11229A8022011-03-22022 March 2011 Supplementary Certification Regarding Consultation ML11108A1062011-03-21021 March 2011 Combined Reply to Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater'S Motion for Leave and Petition to Amend Contention EC-3 ML1108307802011-03-18018 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Answers to the State'S Proposed Contention 37 Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Its Deficient Analysis of Energy Alternatives ML1107601812011-03-16016 March 2011 Indian Point - Supplement to NRC Staff'S Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to File a New Contention, and New Contention EC-8 Concerning NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML1107000972011-03-0404 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to the Answer of Entergy and NRC Staff to the State'S Proposed Amended Contention NYS-17B ML1106703812011-02-25025 February 2011 Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Joint Motion for Leave and Petition to Add New Contentions ML1106604252011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1107402862011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York Withdrawal of Request for Enlargement of Page Limitation for the State'S Consolidated Answer to Separate Motions for Summary Disposition on Contention 35/36 ML1105602702011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. and Riverkeeper, Inc.'S New Contentions Concerning the Waste Confidence Rule ML1105605892011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Proposed Amended Contention, New York State 17B and the Associated Request for Exemption And/Or Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Section 51.23(b) ML1104604922011-02-10010 February 2011 State of New York Answer in Support of the Admission of Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Proposed Waste Confidence Contentions ML1106802122011-02-0303 February 2011 State of New York New Contention 12-C Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Underestimation of Decontamination & Clean Up Costs Associated with Severe Reactor Accident in New York Metropolitan Area ML1030000602010-10-22022 October 2010 State of New York'S Joint Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Separate Answers to the State'S Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 ML1030101042010-10-12012 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to Amended Contention New York State 25 Concerning Aging Management of Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals ML1029101422010-10-0404 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1028802972010-10-0404 October 2010 Letter from Martin J. O'Neill Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Emile L. Julian Attachments 8 & 13 to Entergy'S Answer to New & Amended Contention New York State 26B & Riverkeeper TC-1B ML1029101452010-10-0404 October 2010 Supporting Attachments to Applicants Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1030105182010-09-14014 September 2010 State of Ny & Riverkeeper, Inc Submittal of Counter Statement of Material Fact, Combined Response to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Combined Contentions NYS 26/26A & Rk TC-1/TC-1A, Declaration of Janice A. Dean.. ML1023712142010-08-16016 August 2010 Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Riverkeeper Technical Contention 2 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion) ML1023001462010-08-13013 August 2010 Entergy'S Answer to Riverkeeper Inc.'S Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents ML1022405782010-08-0202 August 2010 Applicant'S Reply to the State of New York'S & State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy & NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1021100862010-07-26026 July 2010 the State of New York'S and State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Decision Admitting the State of New York'S Contentions 35 & 36 (LBP-10- ML1020300502010-07-15015 July 2010 Applicant'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1011604152010-04-12012 April 2010 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Energy and NRC Staff Answers to the State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1014503282010-04-0505 April 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New York State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning Entergy'S December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis ML1011004732010-04-0101 April 2010 Answer of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut to State of New York'S Motion for Leave to File New & Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ML0934803252009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML0934910432009-11-20020 November 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add New Contentions Based Upon New Information ML0935101942009-11-20020 November 2009 Town of Cortlandt'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 & SC-1 Re Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005702402009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005700112009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML1008200282009-11-19019 November 2009 Answer of the State of New York to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0930801292009-10-26026 October 2009 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information ML0909802072009-04-0707 April 2009 Lr - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater'S Petition to File New Contention, Based Upon New Information Regarding Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Using the Hudson River as a Drinking Water Supply ML0910502112009-04-0606 April 2009 Entergy'S Consolidated Response to Riverkeeper'S February & March 2009 Filings Concerning Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1 and Riverkeeper Contention TC-2 ML0909604702009-03-31031 March 2009 State of New York Combined Reply to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and NRC Staff in Support of Contentions 12-A, 16-A, 17-A, 33, and 34 ML0909302042009-03-24024 March 2009 Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing New and Amended Environmental Contentions of New York State ML0908401162009-03-24024 March 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Amended and New Contentions Filed by the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc., Concerning the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0908608682009-03-18018 March 2009 Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Preservation of Right to Amend Contention TC-2 - Flow Accelerated Corrosion Based Upon NRC Staff'S Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items ML0906903032009-02-27027 February 2009 State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff'S Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0904105002009-01-26026 January 2009 Entergy'S Reply to Riverkeeper'S Answer Opposing Interlocutory Appeal of Licensing Board Admission of Consolidated Contention 2011-09-14
[Table view] Category:Responses and Contentions
MONTHYEARML11257A1102011-09-14014 September 2011 Certificate of Service for Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention and for Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions ML11257A1092011-09-13013 September 2011 Reply Memorandum Regarding Timeliness and Admissibility of New Contentions Seeking Consideration of Environmental Implications of Fukushima Task Force Report in Individual Reactor Licensing Proceedings ML11257A1112011-09-13013 September 2011 Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Fukushima Task Force Report ML11228A0302011-08-11011 August 2011 the State of New York and the State of Connecticut'S Joint Answer in Opposition to Entergy'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-11-17 ML11217A0662011-07-29029 July 2011 Applicant'S Petition for Review of LBP-11-17 Granting Summary Disposition of Consolidated Contention NYS-35/36 ML11210B4192011-07-26026 July 2011 State of New York'S Response to Applicant'S Motion for Clarification of Licensing Board Admissibility Rulings on Contentions NYS-17B and NYS-37 ML11179A0922011-06-21021 June 2011 Letter Regarding New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in the Matter of Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, License Renewals ML11133A2882011-04-29029 April 2011 Indian Point, Units 2 & 3, State Submittal of Letter to Bring Two Recent Documents to Attention of the Board and Parties in Connection with NYS Contention-25 ML11117A1462011-04-19019 April 2011 Emergency Petition to Suspend All Pending Reactor Licensing Decisions and Related Rulemaking Decisions Pending Investigation of Lessons Learned from Fukushima Dahchi Nuclear Power Station Accident ML11229A8022011-03-22022 March 2011 Supplementary Certification Regarding Consultation ML11108A1062011-03-21021 March 2011 Combined Reply to Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater'S Motion for Leave and Petition to Amend Contention EC-3 ML1108307802011-03-18018 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Answers to the State'S Proposed Contention 37 Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Its Deficient Analysis of Energy Alternatives ML1107601812011-03-16016 March 2011 Indian Point - Supplement to NRC Staff'S Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to File a New Contention, and New Contention EC-8 Concerning NRC Staff'S Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML1107000972011-03-0404 March 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to the Answer of Entergy and NRC Staff to the State'S Proposed Amended Contention NYS-17B ML1106703812011-02-25025 February 2011 Combined Reply to NRC Staff and Entergy'S Answers in Opposition to Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Joint Motion for Leave and Petition to Add New Contentions ML1106604252011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Entergy and Staff Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition on NYS Combined Contentions 35 and 36 Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1107402862011-02-23023 February 2011 State of New York Withdrawal of Request for Enlargement of Page Limitation for the State'S Consolidated Answer to Separate Motions for Summary Disposition on Contention 35/36 ML1105602702011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. and Riverkeeper, Inc.'S New Contentions Concerning the Waste Confidence Rule ML1105605892011-02-18018 February 2011 Applicant'S Answer to Proposed Amended Contention, New York State 17B and the Associated Request for Exemption And/Or Waiver of 10 C.F.R. Section 51.23(b) ML1104604922011-02-10010 February 2011 State of New York Answer in Support of the Admission of Clearwater and Riverkeeper'S Proposed Waste Confidence Contentions ML1106802122011-02-0303 February 2011 State of New York New Contention 12-C Concerning NRC Staff'S December 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Underestimation of Decontamination & Clean Up Costs Associated with Severe Reactor Accident in New York Metropolitan Area ML1030000602010-10-22022 October 2010 State of New York'S Joint Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff'S Separate Answers to the State'S Additional Bases for Previously-Admitted Contention NYS-25 ML1030101042010-10-12012 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to Amended Contention New York State 25 Concerning Aging Management of Embrittlement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals ML1029101422010-10-0404 October 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1028802972010-10-0404 October 2010 Letter from Martin J. O'Neill Counsel for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Emile L. Julian Attachments 8 & 13 to Entergy'S Answer to New & Amended Contention New York State 26B & Riverkeeper TC-1B ML1029101452010-10-0404 October 2010 Supporting Attachments to Applicants Answer to New and Amended Contention New York State 26B/Riverkeeper TC-1B (Metal Fatigue) ML1030105182010-09-14014 September 2010 State of Ny & Riverkeeper, Inc Submittal of Counter Statement of Material Fact, Combined Response to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Combined Contentions NYS 26/26A & Rk TC-1/TC-1A, Declaration of Janice A. Dean.. ML1023712142010-08-16016 August 2010 Riverkeeper Opposition to Entergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Riverkeeper Technical Contention 2 (Flow-Accelerated Corrosion) ML1023001462010-08-13013 August 2010 Entergy'S Answer to Riverkeeper Inc.'S Motion to Compel Disclosure of Documents ML1022405782010-08-0202 August 2010 Applicant'S Reply to the State of New York'S & State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy & NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1021100862010-07-26026 July 2010 the State of New York'S and State of Connecticut'S Combined Reply to Entergy and NRC Staff Petitions for Interlocutory Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Decision Admitting the State of New York'S Contentions 35 & 36 (LBP-10- ML1020300502010-07-15015 July 2010 Applicant'S Petition for Interlocutory Review of LBP-10-13 ML1011604152010-04-12012 April 2010 State of New York'S Combined Reply to Energy and NRC Staff Answers to the State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative Reanalysis ML1014503282010-04-0505 April 2010 Applicant'S Answer to New York State'S New and Amended Contentions Concerning Entergy'S December 2009 Revised SAMA Analysis ML1011004732010-04-0101 April 2010 Answer of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut to State of New York'S Motion for Leave to File New & Amended Contentions Concerning the December 2009 Reanalysis of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ML0934803252009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer to Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML0934910432009-11-20020 November 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add New Contentions Based Upon New Information ML0935101942009-11-20020 November 2009 Town of Cortlandt'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 & SC-1 Re Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005702402009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML1005700112009-11-20020 November 2009 Answer of Riverkeeper, Inc. in Support of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc.'S New Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 ML1008200282009-11-19019 November 2009 Answer of the State of New York to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition Presenting Supplemental Contentions EC-7 and SC-1 Concerning Storage of High-Level Radioactive Waste at Indian Point ML0930801292009-10-26026 October 2009 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Motion for Leave to Add a New Contention Based Upon New Information ML0909802072009-04-0707 April 2009 Lr - NRC Staff'S Answer to Hudson River Sloop Clearwater'S Petition to File New Contention, Based Upon New Information Regarding Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Using the Hudson River as a Drinking Water Supply ML0910502112009-04-0606 April 2009 Entergy'S Consolidated Response to Riverkeeper'S February & March 2009 Filings Concerning Consolidated Contention Riverkeeper EC-3/Clearwater EC-1 and Riverkeeper Contention TC-2 ML0909604702009-03-31031 March 2009 State of New York Combined Reply to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and NRC Staff in Support of Contentions 12-A, 16-A, 17-A, 33, and 34 ML0909302042009-03-24024 March 2009 Answer of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Opposing New and Amended Environmental Contentions of New York State ML0908401162009-03-24024 March 2009 Indian Point - NRC Staff'S Answer to Amended and New Contentions Filed by the State of New York and Riverkeeper, Inc., Concerning the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0908608682009-03-18018 March 2009 Riverkeeper, Inc.'S Preservation of Right to Amend Contention TC-2 - Flow Accelerated Corrosion Based Upon NRC Staff'S Safety Evaluation Report with Open Items ML0906903032009-02-27027 February 2009 State of New York Contentions Concerning NRC Staff'S Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ML0904105002009-01-26026 January 2009 Entergy'S Reply to Riverkeeper'S Answer Opposing Interlocutory Appeal of Licensing Board Admission of Consolidated Contention 2011-09-14
[Table view] |
Text
R 4,5 VILLAGE OF BUCHANAN MAYOR DANIEL E. O'NEILL TRUSTEES GARY BELL JANE HITNEY FRANCES E. SURAK JOSEPH V. TROPIANO THOMAS J. JANKOWSKI VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR CLERK & TREASURER (914) 737-1033 FAX (914) 737-6587 MUNICIPAL BUILDING, BUCHANAN, N.Y. 10511-1298 DOCKETED USNRC November 15, 2007 November 30, 2007 (4:00 pm)OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF The Honorable Annette L. Vietti-Cook Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-247/286-LR ASLB 07-858-03-LR-BD-01 Dear Secretary Vietti-Cook:
We hereby request that the Village of Buchanan be granted Intervener Status and/or as a party to any proceeding concerning the re-licensing applications for the Indian Point 2 and 3 nuclear reactors, located in Buchanan (license renewal applications of Indian Point Unit 2 (DPR-26) and Indian Point Unit 3 (DPR-64)).
The Village of Buchanan requests Intervener and/or party status pursuant to the Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance, of Orders (Part 2 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 2) and related regulations.
Please also consider this letter as a Hearing Request and Petition for Intervention pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2.309 et seq and related regulations.
The Village of Buchanan should be granted Intervener and/or party Status because it is host to the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Both Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 are located within the Village of Buchanan and are therefore subject to Village of Buchanan laws and jurisdiction.
The Village of Buchanan provides municipal services to the Indian Point power plant. Indian Point 1 was built in Buchanan as the first peaceful atomic power plant in the United States in the 1950s. Subsequently, Indian Point 2 and then Indian Point 3 were constructed.
The Village seeks Intervener status primarily so that the re-licensing procedure takes into account the following factors: 1. The environmental and health benefits of Indian Point 2 and 3, particularly with respect to reducing the burning of fossil fuels to make electricity and reduced auto emissions because of less expensive mass transit (see 5.b and c, below);2. The need for national energy self-sufficiency; V -a Secretary Vietti-Cook, page 2 November 23, 2007 3. The economic benefits of Indian Point 2 and 3 with respect to the local and regional economies;
- 4. The tax benefits to local governments particularly to the Village of Buchanan, other municipalities in Westchester County and the City of New York, as well as Westchester County and the State of New York; and, 5. Financial benefits to: a) Residential and business rate-payers of Consolidated Edison who benefit from lower electric bills;b) Riders of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority trains including Metro North Railroad and the New York City subway system, whose fares would be higher without inexpensive electricity made at Indian Point 3 powering the trains;c) Roadways have less congestion due to commuters taking moderately price mass transit and, 6. Safety issues. I believe that the history of nuclear power in the United States, including at Indian Point, has been far safer than other methods of producing electricity.
I believe all of these factors are significant in deciding whether to grant re-licensing to Indian Point 2 and 3. These factors should therefore be considered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in determining whether the licenses of Indian Point 2 and .3 should be renewed.The environmental and health benefits of Indian Point 2 and 3 One of the most significant issues facing our country today is the future of the environment, in particular with regard to global warming and other problems associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Given the increasing need for electricity, it is imperative that we increase the use of renewable energy sources such as nuclear power.An article from The Sierra Club details the pollution released by coal-fired electric power plants. A copy of the article is annexed hereto and incorporated, by reference, to this letter. The statistics are indeed disturbing.
If we continue to rely upon coal- and other fossil fuel burning power plants for electricity, the environmental and health effects will be devastating.
Secretary Vietti-Cook, page 3 November 23, 2007 The environmental and health problems are particularly disturbing in the Hudson Valley and New York City metropolitan area, where air quality is among the worst in the nation.If Indian Point was not re-licensed, the environment would suffer greatly.Replacing Indian Point with equivalent gas and oil fuels would result in more than 14 million tons a year of additional air pollution.
A 785-megawatt coal burning power plant burns about 9,200 tons of coal per day, or 18,400,000 pounds per day. This would have to be generated in the Hudson Valley and New York City, causing an increase in air pollution., So-called
'alternative fuels' are not yet a realistic solution.
As the Manhattan Institute pointed out, it would take 300,000 acres of Statue of Liberty-size windmills strewn across the landscape to generate as much power as Indian Point produces on 240 acres. Given the environmental and economic costs, it would make far more sense to replace fossil fuel burning plants rather than Indian Point, whenever alternative fuels become a viable source of electric production.
As discussed below, without Indian Point it is very likely that more commuters would drive to work rather than take trains, which use inexpensive electricity made at Indian Point. If more cars are on the roads, air pollution will increase.The need for national energy self-sufficiency.
Ongoing instability in the Middle East, Nigeria and South America has caused huge price increases in oil, gasoline and natural gas. And it is apparent that some 'oil money' to the Middle East has been eventually used to fund terrorism and fund those who preach hatred of the United States and democratic values worldwide.
It is obvious that we must work towards energy independence and nuclear power is certainly one of the most important ways of achieving that independence.
Nuclear power is an increasingly important part of our energy supply given the concerns about the environment and foreign-energy dependency.
Many European countries rely on nuclear power to avoid burning fossil fuels and reduce their dependency on foreign energy sources. Nuclear power is one of the 'alternative energy' sources that must be utilized to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, especially from foreign sources.'Some anti-Indian Point groups have argued that electricity could be imported to the Hudson Valley and New York City from out-of-state power plants. This argument is greatly flawed. First, the electricity would be produced at power plants burning, coal or other fossil fuels, so other parts of the country would be subjected to more pollution.
Such narrow-minded thinking has no place in the effort to improve our environment.
Furthermore, that air pollution would travel to New York. Second, there is not nearly enough capacity to transport enough electricity to replace power now made at Indian Point. Efforts to increase power lines have been fought by residents and their elected officials.
Recently Congressman John Hall joined with residents of Orange County in opposing construction of a new power line.
Secretary Vietti-Cook, page 4 November 23, 2007 The economic benefits of Indian Point 2 and 3 Indian Point produces 2000+ megawatts of electricity, nearly the output of the Hoover Dam. As such, it provides 20-40 percent of the New York metropolitan region's energy needs, depending on time of year and usage levels.The Hudson Valley and New York City would be in the vulnerable, and untenable, position of largely "importing" electricity.
When California tried this a few years ago the results were disastrous and are still reverberating in the state. (Also see footnote 1.)When Indian Point 2 was shut down in the summer of 2002, electric rates for Con Edison customers increased approximately 20%. One could only imagine the increase is electric rates if Indian Point 2 and/or 3 were shut down. The impact on the area's economy would be devastating.
Tax and Financial benefits Indian Point pays $34 million in annual property taxes. In addition, Indian Point supplies many cities, villages, and towns in Westchester County with cost savings of 20 percent or more on electricity.
Shutting down Indian Point would increase electric costs for homeowners, businesses and all levels of government.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority uses electricity from Indian Point to power Metro-North commuter trains and the New York City subway system. Without this inexpensive power, commuter train and subway fares would increase.
The fare increase would place a greater economic burden on those who must use these trains. A fare increase would hurt those with lower and fixed incomes disproportionately.
In addition, a fare increase would discourage many from using mass transit. As a result there would be more cars on the road, leading to increased traffic problems.
Traffic congestion already imposes huge costs to the national -and local -economy. Increased traffic would also add to air pollution concerns.Safety issues One of the least known facts about nuclear power is that it is one of the safest ways of producing electricity.
The history of nuclear power in the United States demonstrates a great safety records. The NRC charged with overseeing the safety of nuclear power is dedicated solely to nuclear plants. There is no such agency that solely oversees the safety at fossil fuel burning power plants.
Secretary Vietti-Cook, page 5 November 23, 2007 We thank you for your consideration of the foregoing.
Should you wish to discuss the foregoing or related issues, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours, Daniel E. O'Neill Mayor James Seirmarco, M.S.Liaison to Indian Point Enclosure 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 22, 2007 copies of the foregoing Petition to Intervene from the Village of Buchanan have been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail: Office of the Secretary (original and two copies)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sixteenth Floor One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Richard E. Wardell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop -T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Lawrence G. McDade, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop -T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwood Martinelli Friends United for Sustainable Energy USA, Inc.351 Dykman Street Peekskill, NY 10566 Michael J. Delaney, Vice President
-Energy New York City Economic Development Corporation 110 William Street New York, NY 10038 Administrative Judge Kaye D. Lathrop Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop -T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.Beth N. Mizuno, Esq.Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop -O- 15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.Paul Bessette, Esq.Mauri T. Lemoncelli, Esq.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Penny Pie4e-Baisle)
Deputy Village Clerl Village of Buchanan Sworn before me this 23rd day of November, 2007 DANIEL E- O'Na..l, Notay puft, tate .Wrr.,ti , (320N5027620 Co rm ission ExpiresM V91 -- -