ML073100491: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 38: Line 38:
4: the alternatives to Indian Point's nuclear power, using a  
4: the alternatives to Indian Point's nuclear power, using a  


combination of renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal), conservation, and clean natural gas, as offered by the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report.  
combination of renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal), conservation, and clean natural gas, as offered by the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report.
: 5. You would never site a new plan t at this location in this day and age. Even if there is 1/100 of a 1% chance of a disaster it is too much for this location!!
: 5. You would never site a new plan t at this location in this day and age. Even if there is 1/100 of a 1% chance of a disaster it is too much for this location!!
It is a common sense decision.
It is a common sense decision.

Revision as of 18:55, 12 July 2019

2007/10/11 - Comment (29) Regarding Iplr Scoping
ML073100491
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 10/11/2007
From: Public Commenter
Public Commenter
To:
Division of License Renewal
References
72FR45075
Download: ML073100491 (3)


Text

From: <JOEL@ALCHEMY-PROPERTIES.COM>

To: <IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov> Date: 10/11/2007 6:36:18 PM

Subject:

Indian Point EIS Comments

Bo Pham

Dear Bo Pham,

I formally request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

address the following environmental and public health issues in the Draft Environmental Impact St atement for the Indian Point nuclear power plant:

1: the impacts of a terrorist a ttack or large-scale accident at Indian Point on the Croton Reserv oir, a drinking water supply for New York City and Westchester County residents;

2: the impacts of Indian Poin t's once-through cooling system on the Hudson River fish populations - including entrainment, impingement, and thermal pollution - using the most current scientific studies;

3: the build-up of high-level r adioactive waste at Indian Point and the ongoing radioactive leaks or iginating from at least two spent fuel pools;

4: the alternatives to Indian Point's nuclear power, using a

combination of renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal), conservation, and clean natural gas, as offered by the 2006 National Academy of Sciences report.

5. You would never site a new plan t at this location in this day and age. Even if there is 1/100 of a 1% chance of a disaster it is too much for this location!!

It is a common sense decision.

Nuclear plants should be locat ed away from major population centers.

Sincerely, JOEL BREITKOPF

C/O ALCHEMY PROPERTIES

200 MADISON AVENUE, 20TH FL NEW YORK, NY 10016

Federal Register Notice: 72FR45075 Comment Number: 29 Mail Envelope Properties (47306F76.HQGWDO01.OWGWPO04.200.2000006.1.13A832.1)

Subject:

Indian Point EIS Comments Creation Date: 10/11/2007 6:36:18 PM From: <JOEL@ALCHEMY-PROPERTIES.COM>

Created By: JOEL@ALCHEMY-PROPERTIES.COM

Recipients <IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov>

Post Office Route OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1385 10/11/2007 6:36:18 PM Mime.822 2235 11/6/2007 1:43:18 PM Options Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None None

Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard