Text

5/20/2015 - Indian Point Public Meeting (Annual Assessment) - Meeting Written Comments
	ML15295A342
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/20/2015
From:	; Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	; NRC Region 1
	Draxton M
References
	Download: ML15295A342 (80)
	v • d • e

ML15295A342 Indian Point Annual Assessment Meeting May 20, 2015 Written Comments Personally Identifiable Information Redacted

Also comparing Indian Point to Fukushima or Chernobyl is not realistic because both of those sites failed due to cheaper technological shortcuts which are not tolerated in the United States.

Without the two thousand megawatts generated by Indian Point the New York City metropolitan area would be suffering rolling blackouts and brownouts just like the ones which occurred in the early sixties before the plant was built.

The close the plant crowds who claim alternate power resources will take care of our energy requirements are not being realistic either.

For example producing 2,000 megawatts of electricity per year requires nine hundred wind turbines. With three hundred foot blades, the turbines only have a twenty year life cycle. No power is produced when there is no wind As far as solar energy goes it takes four years to get back the energy used to produce the equipment. A more significant fact is that in this region the sun does not shine every day!

Producing electricity accounts for one third of fossil fuel consumption.

Producing 1,000 megawatts of electricity per year requires 2,000 train cars of coal, 10 supertankers of oil, or over 50,000 million cubic feet of natural gas!

It only takes 12 cubic meters of Uranium to produce the same amount of electricity while avoiding the burning of fossil fuels which is the most damaging process that mankind has ever inflicted upon nature.

New York City metropolitan area residents suffer from an abnormally high asthma rate. The yearly amount of Sulfur released into the air for each 1,000 megawatts of conventionally produced electricity is 500,000 tons for coal, 300,000 tons for oil, and 200,000 tons for natural gas.

Large cities require huge amounts of clean electricity. Where else should nuclear power plants be located?

The senseless chatter about excess power capacity in other regions really has to end. Their demands keep growing also and electricity can only be transported three hundred miles. Utilizing what amounts to a long extension cord to import electricity from other regions does nothing for the local population in terms of providing jobs, paying taxing, along with the multiplier effect of inserting currency into ta local economy.

For over thirty years Indian Point has been Safe, Secure, and Vital. We need it operating in order to maintain our local grid! As far as transformers are concerned all means of energy production use them be it gas, coal, or oil. No matter the plant they have a high rate of failure.

Matt Brennan 2

From: Joe Brown Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:24 AM To: Screnci, Diane

Subject:

Comments to IPEC End of Cycle Meeting

Dear Ms. Screnci,

The Daisy Jopling Foundation is a Westchester based nonprofit organization set up to bring education, through music, to children thus improving the community. Powering that effort is support from Entergy. With this support a broad range of community children are able to share the experience of performing live with world class professional musicians on stage. This is usually a life changing experience.

The growing need for safe, clean secure power will continue to expand as our demand increases. The only source that is able to meet this demand today is nuclear power generation. It is safe because it is designed and constructed to be safe. It is secure because Entergy is responsible and supports that need financially. It is vital for us to expand our power usage without the harmful effects of carbon emissions.

At the Daisy Jopling Foundation we are passionate about making smart choices. We do this so that our children can become better students and bring their talents and treasures to the community. We also expect governmental decision makers to make smart decisions for the benefit of all. License renewal of Entergys Indian Point nuclear power plant is a smart choice.

Sincerely, Joe Brown President Daisy Jopling Foundation 1

From: Ann Fabrizio Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:13 AM To: Screnci, Diane Cc: Fay, Deborah

Subject:

EOC meeting May 20 To Whom It May Concern:

I represent ArtsWestchester, the largest nonprofit arts council in New York State, and the umbrella organization for the cultural community of Westchester. We have been in business for 50 years and we are one of the most respected non profits in the county. Had I been able to speak at the hearing on May 20th, I would have told the audience that Entergy is an exemplary corporate citizen because they care about Westchester. Many Fortune 500 companies call Westchester home, but Entergy alone makes that commitment with conviction. In fact, there are four major corporate headquarters in Westchester that I can name who give little or no support to the nonprofit community, claiming that they are "global" companies and are not interested in Westchester. Entergy, on the other hand, actively participates at every level of local life. Their senior executives serve on nonprofit boards, their employees attend events, and their funds support vital programs and services in underresourced schools and communities. ArtsWestchester is just one example of where Entergy makes a difference. We have an Entergy representative serving on our board, another Entergy executive spearheads our golf tournament, and Entergy funds enable us to offer artsineducation programs in some of Westchester's most underserved schools in Yonkers, Mount Vernon and Greenburgh. Unlike the aforementioned "global" Fortune 500 companies headquartered in this county, Entergy believes in Westchester and therefore would never allow any of its operations to jeopardize those of us who live, work and do business here. Ann Fabrizio, Deputy Director, Development and Communications, ArtsWestchester

Comments for NRC Annual Meeting, May 20, 2015 Im Suzannah Glidden of North Salem, NY, a resident living within the 50mile blast zone should a rupture occur of the proposed Spectra Energy Algonquin AIM pipeline next to Indian Point. My life is at stake and the lives of 20 million other Americans should this untenably dangerous project be constructed.

Even when Indian Point is decommissioned, the 40+ years of highly radioactive spent fuel pools will remain forever making the site as dangerous as it is today because the two reactors are more protected than the spent fuel. Nuclear energy never should have been allowed given the unsolved accumulation of spent fuel.

The insanity of situating Algonquins high pressure transmission gas pipeline with its 42 inch diameter and 850 pounds per square inch of pressure within 105 feet of hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel stored at Indian Point must be prevented.

When the transformer fire shut down one of the two reactors, not even a minor blip of energy reduction occurred. The electric transmission lines bottlenecks are being upgraded and the area including NYC will receive additional energy to easily replace Indian Points energy.

We hear that NRC has gained the unfortunate reputation of being reckless with safety issues concerning nuclear power plants and rubber stamping approvals of unsafe nuclear situations.

The public is calling upon NRC to redeem itself:

1. Rescind NRC approval of a flawed Entergy analysis of siting Algonquins 42" diameter pipeline 105 feet from Indian Point.

2. Participate in conducting a truly independent, transparent and comprehensive risk assessment of situating AIM near Indian Point, an assessment approved of, agreed upon and overseen by nuclear energy and pipeline experts, Paul Blanch and Rick Kuprewicz, and all area stakeholders.

3. Instead of an NRC phone call, honor the request of Paul Blanch, in accordance with NRC guidelines, to hold a public meeting near Indian Point for his presentation so that all of us involved in the crucial AIM decision can attend.

Thank you.

From: "Terry Kirchner"

Subject:

Comments regarding Indian Point license renewal Date: 22 May 2015 16:05 To: "Screnci, Diane" <Diane.Screnci@nrc.gov>

Dear Ms. Screnci,

Due to the large number of speakers ahead of me, I did not have the opportunity to speak at the Regulatory Performance Public Meeting regarding the Indian Point nuclear power plant held on May 20, 2015. I am providing my prepared remarks.

Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., the owner and operator of the Indian Point nuclear power plant, has been a strong corporate citizen through their ongoing support of regional nonprofits. Westchester Library System (WLS) has received numerous sponsorships from Entergy. This support has enabled WLS to create and expand community awareness activities for the vital services provided by WLS and the 38 public libraries in Westchester County. It has also supported literacy programs and learning opportunities for individuals of all ages and backgrounds. Entergys sponsorship has allowed WLS, through the 38 public libraries, to better meet the quality of life and learning needs of the county's 950,000 residents. Nonprofits such as WLS and the public libraries help improve the overall quality of life for many individuals.

License renewal of Entergys Indian Point nuclear power plant would contribute to the continued support of the overall growth and sustainability of the Westchester Library System.

Sincerely, Terry L. Kirchner Executive Director Westchester Library System 1

Terry L Kirchner, PhD Executive Director Westchester Library System 540 White Plains Rd, Suite 200 Tarrytown, NY 10591-5110 tel: 914-231-3223 fax: 914-674-4185 email: tkirchner@wlsmail.org

Historic Hudson Valley Testimony NRC Regulatory Performance Public Meeting May 20, 2015 Good evening. Im Jill Mosebach, Associate Director of Development for Historic Hudson Valley. It is an honor to be here today to speak on behalf of our friend and neighbor, The Indian Point Energy Center.

Were a nonprofit organization that operates six historic sites along the Hudson River, including Philipsburg Manor and Washington Irvings Sunnyside, which are not far from here.

Our museum properties are:

1) Treasured community resources

2) Tourist destinations that attract thousands of visitors from around the world

3) Learning laboratories that serve some 20,000 schoolchildren each yearmany from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Entergy has been a long-time philanthropic investor in our mission.

Eleven years ago, the companys partnership enabled us to launch The Great Jack OLantern Blaze, a family event that has become a cherished holiday tradition.

And last year, Entergy helped us to launch LIGHTSCAPES, a brand new event that attracted more than 20,000 visitors to Van Cortlandt Manor over 11 nights. This year, its on track to draw more than 25,000 visitors.

These heritage tourism events are important engines of the local economy. Of the nearly 150,000 people who attended last year, many stayed in hotels, dined in restaurants, and shopped on main streets.

These events have also had a tremendous impact on Historic Hudson Valleys own work, boosting revenue, our membership base, and awareness about our sites and educational programs.

Entergy leads the way in corporate philanthropy in Westchester County.

Historic Hudson Valley and the other organizations here today are among hundreds of nonprofits across the region and the nation that have benefited from millions of dollars in philanthropic support.

But beyond contributed dollars, we also benefit in a variety of other meaningful ways:

1) From the guidance and expertise of the leadership team at Entergys regional headquarters

2) From the volunteer hours donated by Indian Point employees

3) From Entergy-sponsored workshops and seminars which empower our staffs

4) From promotional initiatives that drive people to our programs and events All of us at Historic Hudson Valley are proud to call Entergy a friend, a committed neighbor, and a partner in our efforts to enrich the quality of life along the Hudson. Its our great hope to continue to work side-by-side with Entergy for many years to come.

Thank you.

953 South Lake Blvd, Mahopac, NY 10541 Phone: 845 228-8595, e-mail: info@putnamchamberny.org NRC Regulatory Performance Public Meeting Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant - May 20, 2015 Good evening. My name is Bill Nulk and I am the President of the Putnam County Chambers of Commerce. I feel, that I am well representing the vast majority of our membership when I say that we appreciate what a good, reliable corporate citizen and partner Entergy and its operation at Indian Point have been.

Yes, let me be clear that Entergy is a member of our Chamber and we are happy for their involvement in our community.

Over and above supplying a significant reliable amount of electrical power to our region, Indian Point also employs many workers in our area in a multitude of trades and positions. It is a common sense reality that those employees will perform their jobs always cognizant of their own safety and that of their families who live nearby.

You in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission know that you hold Indian Point and its operations to the highest standards of safety and performance. Your inspection is continuous and extensive. And you have given Entergy and Indian Point very good marks for their effort and accomplishment.

Entergy and Indian Point have regularly implemented proven technological improvements for the safety and efficiency of their operations.

I might point out that one issue that is often brought up is a result of a failure of the Federal Government to fulfil its promise from back in the middle of the 20th century to provide an answer for the recovery of spent fuel. A political football game has been going on over this issue and the members of the nuclear power industry have been able so far to safely accommodate the problem, but a responsible solution must be found.

In closing, I would like to commend the NRC for its continuing efforts to promote and inspect the safety of our nuclear power industry and point to the NRCs own very positive ratings of Indian Points operations. I have no doubt that Entergy and Indian Point will continue to provide the safe and reliable local electrical power that our area requires as we all enjoy living, working and playing in the Lower Hudson Valley region. Thank you.

Original Message-----

From: Edson Brolin Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 4:13 PM To: OPA1 RESOURCE

Subject:

Indian Point Operation Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Edson Brolin (ebrolin@me.com) on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 16:12:43 through the IP 63.141.200.21 using the form at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/public-affairs/contact-opa.html and resulted in this email to opa1.resource@nrc.gov comments: I cannot attend this evening's meeting in White Plains on Indian Point Units 2 and 3 but was told I could register my opinion by sending an e-mail to the NRC press office.

I have an apartment in Manhattan, where my wife and I have lived, on and off, over a period of 40 years. I have been responsible for nuclear plant designs, R&D and fossil plant design and construction. After retirement, I chaired the Sustainability Committee for the Town of Southampton, NY. In other words I have some knowledge of nuclear energy and the alternatives.

Nuclear power is by far the safest form of base load electricity and its use should be expanded, not reduced.

No energy source is perfect, but Indian Point seems to be a well-run facility (per NRC evaluations) and the people of New York need it. Shutting it down would simply cause us to generate electricity in a much more environmentally offensive way. Please keep Indian Point in operation.

EC Brolin

From: "John Testa"

Subject:

Comments to IPEC End of Cycle Meeting Date: 24 May 2015 20:51 To: "Screnci, Diane" <Diane.Screnci@nrc.gov>

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RI 2100 Renaissance Blvd.

King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attn: Diane Screnci May 24, 2015 Comments to IPEC End of Cycle Meeting Support for Indian Point is more important today than ever before. The plant has proved to be a reliable source of energy as well as a basis for economic stability.

Indian Point works around the clock to power New York homes and businesses and does so without emitting greenhouse gases. The plant is environmentally clean, safe, and provides 10 percent of the states electricity.

Nuclear energy facilities are one of the safest industrial working environments in the nation and without a doubt, Indian Point maintains these high safety standards. The company has always been active in maintaining transparency and therefore deserves the respect and support from stakeholders.

As Indian Point continues to provide almost emission-free electricity, in the safest manner, it should be supported across all policies and energy plans.

Thank you, John G. Testa Westchester County Legislator

From: Nancy Vann Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 4:02 AM To: Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Materials Regarding Pipelines in the NE Dear Mr. Dorman -

Thanks for taking time to discuss some of my concerns following the meeting about Indian Point this evening.

There are currently quite a number of proposed and in-progress pipelines projects in the Northeast. As promised, I am attaching some information regarding the names, locations and anticipated capacities of those project. None of these other projects would entail the same degree of risk as the Spectra/Algonquin project.

There will almost certainly be excess capacity once these other lines are in service - so continuing with plans to site this particular pipeline in this particular place creates an unnecessary hazard.

Thanks again for your attention to this.

Best regards, Nancy S. Vann 1

NGA ISSUE BRIEF: Pipeline Expansion Projects July 2014

SUMMARY

Numerous projects are in development to expand the Northeast pipeline system, to transport supplies from the productive Marcellus shale gas basin in Appalachia As shown in the chart above, pipeline capacity additions in the Northeast have been rising in recent years. The outlook for further growth in 2013 - shown in pale green - is especially robust.

Source U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 25, 2013 http://www.northeastgas.org/pipeline_expansion.php Home Contact Member Login

NGA ISSUE BRIEF: Pipeline Expansion Projects May 2015

SUMMARY

Numerous projects are in development to expand the Northeast pipeline system, to transport supplies from the productive Marcellus shale gas basin in Appalachia Projects rely upon customer commitments via contracts to proceed Development must meet federal and state regulatory requirements.

NGA: pipeline infrastructure development is needed in the region to meet market demand.

The Northeast's natural gas industry is striving to move forward with infrastructure projects designed to meet growing market demand. There is substantial growth in natural gas supplies within the Marcellus Shale basin on the border of the Northeast region (NY, NJ and New England). Even so, getting these new supplies to market requires further natural gas pipeline infrastructure investments, which requires incremental contract commitments.

Benefits of Adding Infrastructure The Northeast natural gas pipeline system region remains constrained at several key points - particularly into the New York City area/Long Island and New England. New supplies and infrastructure will help to ease those constraints, and should help to improve the regional price situation.

The multiple projects all center around bringing Marcellus Shale supplies in Appalachia to market. These projects are designed to help further increase regional natural gas capacity, deliverability, flexibility and reliability, as well as provide economic and environmental benefits to the region.

In addition, there are planned system expansions on local utility systems to meet growing demand for natural gas - at the residential and commercial/industrial levels.

Importance of Contract Commitments to Project Advancement The natural gas delivery system is designed to fulfill its contractual arrangements.

Pipeline capacity is added to meet the needs of gas customers requesting primary firm

service and who are willing to execute firm transportation contracts that pay for the required capital investment and operating costs. Without such commitments and arrangements, projects cannot proceed.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in a December 2003 report on New England's natural gas infrastructure noted:

"The adequacy of the natural gas infrastructure is based on its ability to fulfill its contractual commitments. Natural gas may be contracted on a firm or interruptible basis.

Interruptible contracts are typically less expensive because capacity is only paid for if used, and the supplier or transporter may interrupt service. The natural gas infrastructure is considered adequate if firm commitments are met and terms of the interruptible contract are satisfied."

However, natural gas pipeline companies do not design or build pipeline projects based on the assumption that there will be a future market for transportation. Capital investment by pipelines must be supported by revenue certainty through firm service agreements.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) summarizes the various options for creating additional pipeline capacity as including:

Building an entirely new pipeline Adding a parallel pipeline along a segment of pipeline, called looping Installing a lateral or extension off the existing mainline Upgrading and expanding facilities, such as compressor stations, along an existing

route.

What are the Stages of Pipeline Project Development? There are several stages of project development. The following is adapted from a U.S. EIA paper.

Phase I:

Market Assessmen t and "Open Season" Market need and project viability assessed Meet with stakeholder s

Project proposal announced "Open season" held to gauge level of market interest among potential customers non-binding commitment to sign-up for a portion of the capacity rights available on the project If enough interest is shown, sponsors arrive at preliminary design.

Phase 2: Development of final project design and obtaining of firm financial commitments from customers; meet with stakeholders Phase 3: Filing with regulatory agencies - federal, state, etc.

Phase 4: Regulatory review and issuing of necessary certificates Phase 5: Construction Phase 6: Commissioning and testing

The process from initial development to commissioning can take from 3 to 5 years, and sometimes even longer.

Regulatory Review The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the lead permitting agency for interstate pipeline projects.

FERC is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, electricity and oil.

In addition, projects Photo: Yankee Gas Services Company require certain state (and sometimes local) permits, particularly in environmental matters.

The U.S. EIA observes: "A FERC review of an interstate pipeline project takes from 5-18 months, with an average time of 15 months. No data are available on the average time for obtaining approval from an individual State agency. Usually, approval by the regulating authority is conditional, but most often the conditions do not constitute a significant impediment. The project sponsor must then either accept or reject the conditions or reapply with an alternative plan."

Opportunities for the Region The Marcellus supply production and the related infrastructure development offer great opportunities to the economy and environment of the Northeast. This region remains one of the most highly-populated, highly-priced and yet most highly-constrained gas markets in the U.S. These supply and pipeline developments have the potential of transforming the traditional paths of supply sourcing into the region, creating a more diverse supply mix and a more varied delivery network. This bodes well for regional supply security and economic competitiveness.

For Further Information NGA Summary of Proposed Northeast Pipeline Projects [pdf]

U.S. EIA Outline of Pipeline Development Process U.S. FERC Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)

From: PDW Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 11:46 PM To: Burritt, Arthur

Subject:

[External_Sender] NRC PUBLIC MEETING FEEDBACK 2015 Indian Point Annual Assessment Meeting May 20, 2015 I have been attending these annual NRC meetings and other hearing for many years and attempt to speak at each forum; when denied the opportunity, I usually submit a written comment, as I am doing now.

While I am certainly appreciative that these meetings are now being recorded and available to the public, and I applaud the pre-positioning resources now in Tennessee and Arizona, overall I am totally frustrated by the NRCs procedure especially concerning relicensing of Indian Point. Some of these frustrations are set forth below in a verbatim reprint Letter to the Editor.

While front page coverage of Indian Point is most welcome, the key issue concerning whether the licenses at Indian Point should be renewed for another 20 years should have been amplified.

The NRCs bias to the nuclear industry is evident in that they have never refused to license a nuclear facility in their entire 40 year history. In their consideration of relicensing Indian Point, they do not take into account such factors as earthquakes, even though they have characterized Indian Point 3 as the plant most vulnerable to earthquake damage in the country. Nor do they consider the threat of terrorism, or proximity of the high pressure natural gas pipeline, or climate change effects such as Super Storm Sandy.

The NRCs bias is also evident in the exemption that they gave Entergy, among hundreds of others, for required one hour fireresistant cable wires the Indian Point, condoning use of cable with only 24 minutes protection. In spite of a private lawsuit attempting to compel the NRC to uphold their own regulation, the NRC has not vitiated this exemption (of course Entergy could have upgraded the cable to comply with the regulation on their own if they so chose, but they did not).

Although it is often conceded that this nuclear facility never should have been built at Indian Point, the NRC fails to take into consideration the current larger population has no viable means to escape in case of nuclear catastrophe, which is hypocritical at best considering that they advocated Americans get beyond 50 miles from Fukushima when that tragedy struck. It is almost unimaginable to contemplate the consequences if an evacuation occurred. Thousands, if not millions, of people would flee, often losing their jobs and effectively losing their homes (what is a house worth in a nuclearcontaminated zone?), and where would we go?

When Governor Andrew Cuomo was Attorney General, he characterized Indian Point as a catastrophe waiting to happen. As is pointed out in your article, many local officials decry the prospect of another 20 years of Indian 1

Point. We must now turn to our federal leaders, our Representatives, Senators and the Administration, even the President, to make sure that the application for operating Indian Point for another 20 years is denied. Please write, e mail, call our federal officials, copy to the Governor, so they know we cannot accept the risk of another 20 years of Indian Point.

Peter D. Wolf