TO DO: Close Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant
Source: Riverkeeper

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/422/250/708/?z00m=20227962

Tell NYS Indian Point Violates Coastal Policies and Should Close

Share

Photo courtesy Giles Ashford More about the battle to Close Indian Point

The New York State Department of State is currently reviewing a request from the owner of the Indian Point nuclear plant, Entergy, for a “coastal consistency certification.”  Indian Point must have this certification in order to obtain the extended operating licenses Entergy is currently seeking from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  In other words, without the blessing of the Department of State, Indian Point should close when its current operating licenses expire.

The “coastal consistent certification” at issue is required under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and involves a determination about whether relicensing Indian Point for an additional 20 years will be consistent with the 44 enforceable policies in NYS’s Coastal Management Plan. 

The evidence overwhelmingly refutes Entergy’s claim that continuing to operate Indian Point is consistent with NY’s coastal zone policies, which explicitly prioritize the protection of habitats, the protection of wildlife from hazardous waste, and the protection and expansion of recreational uses of the river.  Indian Point kills more than 1 billion organisms annually, leaks radioactive waste into the river, and stands in the way of expanded recreational use of the river.

We need you to send a message to the Department of State to urge the agency to not buy into Entergy’s misleading claims and object to Entergy’s certification request.  Such a decision can effectively prevent the relicensing of the aging, environmentally destructive, and unsafe Indian Point plant once and for all!

---

Instructions:

•    Read the sample letter (below). Personalized letters have a greater impact!

•    Just fill out the required fields and click “Sumbit Comment” and it will go to the Review Unit.

You must be a NY State Resident to take this action.

Recipients

• Consistency Review Unit

Contact

*Required fields

*Title:

  Mr.  Ms.  Mrs.  Miss  Dr.  

*First Name:

*Last Name:

*Your Email:

 Address 1:

 Address 2:

 City:

*State / Province:

 Choose a State  AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY   AS FM GU MH MP PR PW VI   AB BC MB NB NL NS NT NU ON PE QC SK YT   None  

*ZIP / Postal Code:

 Phone Number:

Yes, I would like to receive periodic updates and communications from Riverkeeper.

Remember me. What's this?

Message

*Subject:

ATTN: [Decision Maker],

*Personalize your message

Respectfully,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Sample Letter:

I am writing today to urge the New York State Department of State to object to Entergy's unfounded certification that a proposed 20 year license extension for its Indian Point nuclear power plant is consistent with NYS's Coastal Management Program and enforceable NYS coastal zone policies.

Indian Point is an outdated, unsafe, and environmentally destructive nuclear plant, which inflicts severe and unnecessary impacts to the ecologically significant coastal resources of NYS.  If Indian Point operates for an additional 20 years, it will continue to devastate, as well as pose an incredible risk to, NYS coastal areas.  

I encourage you to carefully consider the numerous ways in which the continued operation of Indian Point would be inconsistent with various of NYS's coastal policies, including, but not limited to, the following:

-- Policy 7:  The protection, preservation, and restoration of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats:  Indian Point's antiquated cooling water intake structure, located in the vicinity of the designated significant fish and wildlife habitat of Haverstraw Bay, slaughters millions of aquatic organisms in Hudson River every year.  Decades of such devastation has contributed to the decline of 10 out of 13 key species in the river.  If Entergy were to continue running the plant the way they want to, it would result in ongoing impacts, and clearly not in the protection, preservation, and restoration of significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats.

-- Policy 8:  The protection of fish and wildlife resources from hazardous wastes and pollution:  1,500+ tons of "spent" nuclear waste from Indian Point currently sit on the banks of the Hudson River.  Should Indian Point continue to operate, the plant will generate approximately 1,000 additional tons of waste to also be stored at the site.  This waste, which is largely in tightly packed, degraded, leaking, and highly radioactive waste storage pools, poses an exceptional risk of accident and attendant large scale release of radiation to the surrounding coastal area, and demonstrably not in the protection of NYS coastal resources from hazardous pollutants.

-- Polices 9 & 19:  Protection and expansion of recreational uses of and access to coastal resources:  Historic and rampant radiological leaks from spent fuel pools, buried pipes, and other structures at Indian Point since the 1990s have resulted in extensive plumes of contamination underlying the site.  These plumes include highly toxic radionuclides that are known to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and interfere with human health.  Entergy's solution?  Let the plumes leach into the Hudson River.  This has been happening for years and will continue for decades, especially as the plant continues aging, breaking down, and leaking additional radioactivity to the environment.  Entergy's complacency completely fails to assure the protection of NYS coastal resources for recreational activities, such as fishing and swimming.

The proposed continued operation of Indian Point violates letter and intent of these, as well as other, NYS coastal policies.  I, thus, urge you to ensure that Indian Point is disallowed to continue operating at the expense of NYS coastal resources by strongly objecting to Entergy's entirely unjustified coastal consistency certification.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,