ML073100214: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML073100214 | | number = ML073100214 | ||
| issue date = 10/05/2007 | | issue date = 10/05/2007 | ||
| title = | | title = Comment (13) Regarding Iplr Scoping | ||
| author name = Public Commenter | | author name = Public Commenter | ||
| author affiliation = Public Commenter | | author affiliation = Public Commenter | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:From: | {{#Wiki_filter:From: <judya814@comcast.net> | ||
To: | To: <IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov> | ||
Date: 10/5/2007 10:15:33 AM | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Indian Point EIS Comments | Indian Point EIS Comments Bo Pham | ||
Bo Pham | |||
==Dear Bo Pham,== | ==Dear Bo Pham,== | ||
At the meeting in September about the environmental consequences of another 20 years of Indian Point, I was amazed that the environmental issues included so | At the meeting in September about the environmental consequences of another 20 years of Indian Point, I was amazed that the environmental issues included so much money: specifically that many of the Indian Point supporters have received or are receiving so much financial support from Entergy - African American business groups, local non-profits - so they're all keen on Indian Point continuing...probably forever. | ||
I was also struck by comments from people who work at Indian Point about how safe the plant is. I have concluded that the plant is much safer for those who work INSIDE it than for those of us OUTSIDE it who are subjected to air-borne and water-borne releases of radioactivity on a continual basis. Although the National Academy of Sciences has now determined that THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO RADIOACTIVITY, the NRC has not taken a single step to revise downward the "safe" level of exposure, either for workers or for the general public - at least not that I'm aware of. In consideration of another 20 years of ANY of the nuclear plants around the country, I believe those everyday emissions levels need to be revised. | |||
I was also struck by comments from people who work at Indian Point about how safe the plant is. I have concluded that the | At this time I am formally requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission address the following environmental and public health issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Indian Point nuclear power plant: | ||
1: the impact of a large-scale accident at Indian Point on the Croton Reservoir, a drinking water supply for New York City and Westchester County residents; 2: the impacts of Indian Point's once-through cooling system on the Hudson River fish populations - including entrainment, impingement, and thermal pollution - using the most current scientific studies; | |||
plant is much safer for those who work INSIDE it than for those | |||
of us OUTSIDE it who are | |||
single step to revise downward the "safe" level of exposure, either for workers or for the | |||
emissions levels need to be revised. | |||
At this time I am formally requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission address the following environmental and public health issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Indian Point nuclear power plant: | |||
1: the impact of a large-scale accident at Indian Point on the Croton Reservoir, a drinking water supply for New York City and | |||
Westchester County residents; | |||
2: the impacts of Indian | |||
4: the alternatives to Indian Point's nuclear power, using a | 3: the build-up of high-level radioactive waste at Indian Point and the ongoing radioactive leaks originating 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. | |||
Sincerely, Judy Allen 24 Seifert Lane Putnam Valley, NY 10579 | |||
Federal Register Notice: 72FR45075 Comment Number: 13 Mail Envelope Properties (47304039.HQGWDO01.OWGWPO04.200.2000017.1.18E6D4.1) | |||
Federal Register Notice: | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Indian Point EIS Comments | Indian Point EIS Comments Creation Date: 10/5/2007 10:15:33 AM From: <judya814@comcast.net> | ||
Created By: | Created By: judya814@comcast.net Recipients | ||
<IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov> | |||
Post Office Route OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2248 10/5/2007 10:15:33 AM Mime.822 3077 11/6/2007 10:21:45 AM Options Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None None Concealed | |||
Post Office | |||
Files | |||
Concealed | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
No | No Security: Standard}} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:36, 7 December 2019
| ML073100214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/2007 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| 72FR45075 | |
| Download: ML073100214 (3) | |
Text
From: <judya814@comcast.net>
To: <IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov>
Date: 10/5/2007 10:15:33 AM
Subject:
Indian Point EIS Comments Bo Pham
Dear Bo Pham,
At the meeting in September about the environmental consequences of another 20 years of Indian Point, I was amazed that the environmental issues included so much money: specifically that many of the Indian Point supporters have received or are receiving so much financial support from Entergy - African American business groups, local non-profits - so they're all keen on Indian Point continuing...probably forever.
I was also struck by comments from people who work at Indian Point about how safe the plant is. I have concluded that the plant is much safer for those who work INSIDE it than for those of us OUTSIDE it who are subjected to air-borne and water-borne releases of radioactivity on a continual basis. Although the National Academy of Sciences has now determined that THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO RADIOACTIVITY, the NRC has not taken a single step to revise downward the "safe" level of exposure, either for workers or for the general public - at least not that I'm aware of. In consideration of another 20 years of ANY of the nuclear plants around the country, I believe those everyday emissions levels need to be revised.
At this time I am formally requesting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission address the following environmental and public health issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Indian Point nuclear power plant:
1: the impact of a large-scale accident at Indian Point on the Croton Reservoir, a drinking water supply for New York City and Westchester County residents; 2: the impacts of Indian Point'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 radioactive waste at Indian Point and the ongoing radioactive leaks originating 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.
Sincerely, Judy Allen 24 Seifert Lane Putnam Valley, NY 10579
Federal Register Notice: 72FR45075 Comment Number: 13 Mail Envelope Properties (47304039.HQGWDO01.OWGWPO04.200.2000017.1.18E6D4.1)
Subject:
Indian Point EIS Comments Creation Date: 10/5/2007 10:15:33 AM From: <judya814@comcast.net>
Created By: judya814@comcast.net Recipients
<IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov>
Post Office Route OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2248 10/5/2007 10:15:33 AM Mime.822 3077 11/6/2007 10:21:45 AM Options Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard