Written Statement of

Dan Durett

Director

New York Office

African American Environmentalist Association

For the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Meeting To Discuss The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

For

License Renewal

For the

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant

Presented to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

February 12, 2009

Introduction

My name is Dan Durett and I am the Director of the African American Environmentalist Association New York Office (AAEA-NY). AAEA, founded in 1985, is an organization dedicated to protecting the environment, enhancing human, animal and plant ecologies and promoting the efficient use of natural resources. AAEA includes an African American point of view in environmental policy decision-making and resolves environmental racism and injustice issues through the application of practical environmental solutions. The New York Office was established in 2003.

AAEA New York supports the 20-year License Renewal for the Indian Point nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, New York. AAEA expressed public support for nuclear power for the first time in 2001 after a two-year internal process of studying and debating the issue. AAEA was the first environmental organization to support nuclear power. I am a veteran environmentalist with 34 years experience working on environmental and energy issues. My comments today address the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3.

AAEA-NY has members in the New York area. Members of AAEA live and work – and breathe the air in a Clean Air Act Nonattainment Area. Of particular import to AAEA-NY is the promotion of clean air in African American communities. Because nuclear power is emission-free and has a demonstrated safety record, whereas fossil-fuel power contributes to numerous health issues, AAEA-NY seeks to promote the safe use of nuclear power. AAEA-NY specifically supports the Indian Point 2 and 3 nuclear power facilities because these facilities provide significant electrical capacity to the State of New York with minimal human, animal, air, water, and land impacts. My comments will address specific environmental justice, air pollution, and global warming issues.

AAEA-NY agrees with the preliminary recommendation of the NRC staff:

“…that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewals for IP2 and IP3 are not so great that not preserving the option of license renewals for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS, (2) the ER submitted by Entergy, (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies, (4) the staff’s own independent review, and (5) the staff’s consideration of public comments received during the scoping process.”[1]

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is defined by AAEA-NY as the fair treatment of all people regardless of race or income with respect to environmental issues. AAEA-NY is deeply concerned with any policy or measure that impacts the air quality of the communities where it is based, or that affects the health of its members. Although AAEA-NY is concerned about air quality in all areas, we are particularly concerned with promoting clean air in African American communities because, in many instances, those communities suffer a disproportionate amount of total pollution.

The license renewal of Indian Point is vitally needed because if units two and three are not producing emission free electricity then the air pollution will increase throughout the region. Closure of Indian Point would result in compliance issues for the State with respect to the federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan ("SIP"). Additionally, Indian Point provides reliable energy without contributing pollutants that exacerbate asthma.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) Environmental Justice policy states that it is the general policy of DEC to promote environmental justice and incorporate measures for achieving environmental justice into its programs, policies, regulations, legislative proposals and activities. This policy is specifically intended to ensure that DEC's environmental permit process promotes environmental justice. (Environmental Justice Policy, Policy Statement CP-29, March 19, 2003).

We would like additional information as to why environmental justice is not evaluated on a generic basis. The environmental justice assessment in GEIS is woefully inadequate and does not consider the great benefits of IP2 and IP3 to nearby environmental justice communities. AAEA submits information regarding these benefits but it has yet to be incorporated into site-specific assessments. We would appreciate an explanation as to why these environmental justice benefits are not included in the assessments.[2]

We agree with the NRC conclusion in the GEIS on the environmental justice impacts if IP 2 and IP 3 are relicensed for another twenty years, which states:

“Based on the analysis on environmental health and safety impacts presented in this draft SEIS for other resource areas (contained in Chapters 2 and 4 of this SEIS), there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low income populations form continued operation of IP2 and IP3 during the license renewal period.”[3]

We totally disagree with the environmental justice conclusion that, “the overall environmental justice impacts of constructing and operating a closed-cycle cooling system at the IP2 and IP3 site are likely to be SMALL.”[4] The impacts would be devastating because we believe Entergy would shut the facility down before building cooling towers and that would lead to significantly more air pollution in minority communities that are already inundated with a disproportionate amount of pollution sites. We support the alternative proposal that would combine the existing once-through cooling system with modified intake retrofits that would be equivalent to a new closed-cycle cooling system. Requiring a closed-cycle cooling system is essentially the No-Action Alternative (shut down).

New York’s Minorities Pay the Price for Fossil-Fuel Air Pollution

New York is no exception to this national crisis. In New York City, it is estimated that there are 2,290 deaths, 1,580 hospitalizations, 546 asthma-related emergency room visits, 1,490 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 46,200 asthma attacks yearly attributable to power plant pollution.[5] The New York City area has also been ranked as one of the top five U.S. metropolitan areas for particulate air pollution.[6] And again, these adverse effects disproportionately affect minority communities. In one study, nonwhites in New York City were found to be hospitalized twice as many times as whites on days when ozone levels were high.[7] Another study found that, of the 23 counties in New York State that fail to meet Federal air pollution standards, 37.7% of them are populated by people of color.[8]

That African Americans and other minorities are disproportionately affected by air pollution in New York is not surprising when considering the fact that the majority of air-polluting power plants in the New York metropolitan area are located in African American and other minority communities. Based on figures from the 2000 U.S. Census, only 12.3% of New York State is identified as being African American, and only 29.4% of the total population is classified as a minority. However, in communities that are predominantly minority, such as Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, there are a disproportionate number of fossil-fuel power plants emitting criteria air pollutants. For example, there are approximately 1,563,400 people of color, 217,247 children living in poverty, and 40,248 children who suffer from pediatric asthma within 30 miles of the Lovett facility, a coal-fired power plant bordering the New York City metropolitan area.[9] In the Bronx, which is 35.6% African American and 88% minority, there are two power plants, Harlem River Yards and Hell’s Gate. In Brooklyn, which is 36.4% African American and 64.2% minority, there are seven power plants, the 23^rd and 3^rd Plant, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Gowanus, Hudson Ave., Narrows, the North First St. Plant, and Warbasse Cogen. In Queens, which is 20% African American and 63.2% minority, there are six power plants, Astoria, Poletti, Far Rockaway, JFK Cogeneration, Ravenswood, and the Vernon Blvd. Plant. Queens is also ranked among the worst 10% of U.S. Counties in terms of its exposure to criteria air pollutants, and is one of two city boroughs that violate federal standards.[10] In the Air Quality in Queens County Report, it is stated that:

The concentration of generating capacity in Northwest Queens is exceptionally high for such a densely populated area. In addition, this community includes a high percentage of low-income people and persons of color. These demographics suggest that “environmental justice” concepts and policies should be taken into account when considering options for addressing air quality in Queens and in considering the siting of further sources of air pollution. The steam generating units in Queens are responsible for a large percent of the NO_x, SO₂, and CO₂ emitted in Queens.

In total, there are 24 power plants in the New York metropolitan area, only a handful of which are in areas where minorities do not comprise the majority of the population. One of these is the Indian Point power generating facility.[11]

Lost Production From IP Will Be Replaced By In-City and Other Nearby Facilities

In a study by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., dated November 3, 2003 and entitled, The Impact of converting the Cooling systems at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 on Electrical System Reliability (attached hereto as Exhibit D), Synapse finds that New York electricity generators, particularly in-city generators, have excess capacity which would supplant capacity losses at Indian Point if Indian Point were brought offline. Similarly, in an August 2002 study by the TRC Environmental Group entitled, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC Emissions Avoidance Study (the “TRC Report”), TRC concluded that “it is reasonable to assume that the majority of lost output [(if Indian Point were brought offline)] would be made up by increased generation of units nearest to the New York City/Westchester load pocket.”

Increasing Generation at Facilities Near Indian Point Will Increase Air Pollution in the Communities Where These Facilities Are Based

The TRC Report further found that, if Indian Point is brought offline, the air quality in New York would decrease dramatically. For instance, if the gap created by Indian Point’s closure were to be filled by the power plants located in New York City, almost all of which are in predominantly minority communities, CO₂ plant emissions would increase by 101% (or 12,494,172 tons), SO₂ plant emissions would increase by 106% (or 8,020 tons), and NO_x plant emissions would increase by 105% (or 16,107 tons). Even if replacement electricity were spread out more broadly, to include all of the Hudson Valley and New York City plants, CO₂ plant emissions would still increase by 57% (to 13,686,648 tons), SO₂ plant emissions would increase by 62% (to 35,961 tons), and NO_x emissions would increase by 57% (to 20,258 tons).

And as the level of air pollution increases, so do the incidences of death and respiratory and cardiovascular ailments. For instance, in the National Morbidity and Mortality Air Pollution Study (“NMMAPS”), a team of investigators from Johns Hopkins University and the Harvard School of Public Health found, among other things, strong evidence linking daily increases in particle pollution to increases in death in the largest U.S. cities.[12] Links have also been found between fine particle levels and increased hospital admissions for asthma, cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[13] Stated bluntly in the Air Quality in Queens County Report, “Epidemiological studies tell us that on days when air pollution levels are high, more people get sick or die

Based on the above data and studies, it is clear that if Indian Point 2 and 3 were to be brought offline, forced to close, or if their production were limited, the void in electricity production would be filled by power plants located in minority communities, with a corresponding increase in the rates of asthma and other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and even infant mortality in these communities.

The Benefits of Indian Point 2 and 3

The Indian Point facilities, located in the affluent and predominantly white Westchester County, have a combined generating capacity of approximately 2000 megawatts (MW). The facilities provide approximately 20-30% of the electricity for New York City and its northern suburbs. And, unlike New York’s fossil-fuel burning facilities, Indian Point 2 and 3 do not pollute the air.

AAEA has a strong environmental interest in this proceeding because AAEA is an environmental action group, with a chapter in Manhattan, New York, with a stated goal of promoting clean air in low-income and minority communities by, among other things, supporting the safe use of nuclear energy. AAEA also has members in the New York area whose air quality may be impacted by the DEC’s Permit for Indian Point 2 and 3. Further, AAEA has publicly supported Indian Point 2 and 3, due to its positive impact on New York’s air quality, for several years. For instance, in May 2002, AAEA President Norris McDonald presented testimony before the Committee on Environmental Protection in opposition to Chairman James F. Gennaro’s Resolution 64, which called for the immediate shutdown of Indian Point. AAEA also presented testimony on February 28, 2003, before the New York City Council’s Committee on Environmental Protection, again opposing efforts to shut down Indian Point. And most recently, AAEA participated in the DEC’s legislative hearing relating to Indian Point’s Draft SPDES Permit.

Conclusion

AAEA New York supports the 20-year License Renewal (ESP) for the Indian Point nuclear power plant located in Buchanan, New York. We support this renewal because the facility is a positive structure for mitigating ground level air pollution, global warming and environmental injustice.

[1] U.S. NRC GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38, Regarding IP2 & 3, Draft Report For Comment, Main Report, Executive Summary, p. xvii.

[2] In the GEIS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues were not categorized. The two issues not categorized are environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant specific supplement to the GEIS., p 1-4.

[3] GEIS, 4.4.6 Environmental Justice, p 4/45-4-46.

[4] GEIS, Section 8.1.1.2 Environmental Impacts of the Closed-Cycle Cooling Alternative, Environmental Justice, p. 8-16.

[5] Death, Disease & Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants, at 24, Clean Air Task Force (October 2000) (“Death, Disease & Dirty Power”) (Exhibit C) (http://cta.policy.net/fact/mortality/mortalitylowres.pdf).

[6] New York’s Dirty Power Plants, Clear the Air – the National Campaign Against Dirty Power (available at http://cta.policy.net/relatives/17841.pdf). The Air Quality in Queens County Report states that “New York City … [is] burdened with significant air quality problems” and “[t]he US EPA has determined that the NY metropolitan area … is in ‘severe nonattainment’ for ozone.”

[7]Martha H. Keating, Air Injustice, at 4 (October 2002).

[8] Clear the Air: People of Color in Non-Attainment Counties (http://cta.policy.net/fact/injustice/injustice_non_attainment.pdf).

[9] See Clear the Air: People of Color Living Within 30 Miles of a Specific Coal-Fired Power Plant (available at http://cta.policy.net/relatives/20121.pdf); Clear the Air, Power Plant Pollution Threatens the Health of New York’s Children (June 11, 2002) (available at http://cta.policy.net/relatives/20121.pdf).

[11] All population data compiled from the 2000 U.S. Census.