ML090700178

Comment (37) E-mail Regarding Iplr Dseis

ML090700178
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/10/2009
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	Division of License Renewal
NRC/NRR/DLR
References
73FR80440
Download: ML090700178 (3)

Text

IPRenewalCEmails From: Patti Wood [pjw@grassrootsinfo.org]

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:02 PM To: IndianPointEIS Resource

Subject:

Indian Point To Whom it May Concern:

I write with the greatest concern over the operation of the ENTERGY nuclear power plant at Indian Point. My life's work involves the protection of humans from environmental hazards and I see too many innocent people as victims of large corporations that ignore the tremendous impact they are having on local populations by operating unsafe industries.

Please consider the following points as you proceed with the licensing process:

The Draft EIS fails to properly and fully evaluate the long-term and cumulative effects upon human health of the planned and unplanned releases of radiation into the air, soil, groundwater and Hudson River. The Draft EIS further completely fails to look at the impact upon human health of the synergistic interactions of such radiation with other known toxins which are known to have been released into the regional environment, most notably the PCBs and mercury in the Hudson River.

The Draft EIS is inadequate, incomplete, and cursory and utterly fails to evaluate the options for obtaining electricity by clean, sustainable forms of energy (e.g., through solar, wind, geothermal, small hydro) or for dramatically reducing consumption (e.g., through efficiency technologies, reducing energy waste, and green buildings). The final EIS must properly evaluate the No Action Alternative.

The Draft EIS fails to properly and fully evaluate the impact of Indian Point on the aquatic ecology of the Hudson River and related waterways, especially with respect to endangered species and the coastal zone.

The Draft EIS fails to evaluate the impact of global warming - including the projected warming of the Hudson River and the projected increase and severity of storms and flooding - upon Indian Point. Two examples: (1)

The warming of the Hudson River will exacerbate the impact of the hot plume of water expelled by Indian Point into the river. (2) Increased storms and flooding will exacerbate the corrosion, rusting, etc. of underground piping and other systems at the plant, thereby increasing the likelihood of more accidental radiation releases such as the one discovered in February 2009.

The Draft EIS fails to analyze seismic hazards. This is a manifest dereliction of the NRC¹s duty, especially in light of recent seismic activity in the region and recent studies conducted by Columbia University¹s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory which specifically note the potential threat to Indian Point.

The Draft EIS utterly and appallingly ignores the impact upon the environment and human health of keeping spent fuel and other nuclear waste on site indefinitely. The evidence available strongly supports the conclusion that the Indian Point site will, de facto, become a high level nuclear waste dump for the foreseeable future.

The cost/benefit analysis of the Draft EIS is incomplete and inadequate and constitutes a violation of NEPA.

Notably, it relies upon the preposterous conclusion that a major nuclear accident need not be of concern, and even if one occurred, it would not have a significant effect on the environment or public health. This flies in the face of the United States government¹s (including the NRC¹s) own former analyses. The NRC must include the postulation of a major radioactive release -- the including the possibility of a meltdown and spent fuel fire -

in its cost/benefit analysis.

1

The Draft EIS is defective in neglecting to evaluate the environmental risks inherent in the realities that the operator and the NRC have acknowledged that it is not feasible to fully inspect the fuel pools, the buried and embedded piping, critical electrical wiring, or the dome, where rust has already been detected.

The Draft EIS is defective in neglecting to evaluate the environmental risks inherent in an aging nuclear facility which has already demonstrably shown signs of deterioration. The NRC¹s disregard of aging as a separate crucial factor, and its reliance upon ³aging management² as a failsafe for finding all potentially critical problems, not only flies in the face of standard engineering risk analysis, but is belied by the actual experience at the plant.

The Draft EIS is defective in neglecting to evaluate the environmental risks created by the fireproofing exemptions given by the NRC to Indian Point.

Thank you for your attention.

Patti Wood Executive Director Grassroots Environmental Education 52 Main Street Port Washington, NY 11050 PH (516) 883-0887 FX (516) 944-6586 www.grassrootsinfo.org 2

Federal Register Notice: 73FR80440 Comment Number: 37 Mail Envelope Properties (C5DC3F8D.1BC46%pjw)

Subject:

Indian Point Sent Date: 3/10/2009 4:02:21 PM Received Date: 3/10/2009 4:02:24 PM From: Patti Wood Created By: pjw@grassrootsinfo.org Recipients:

"IndianPointEIS Resource" <IndianPoint.EIS@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: grassrootsinfo.org Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4592 3/10/2009 4:02:24 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: