ML062060436

Email from Dotty Reynolds Regarding Environmental Review of Oyster Creek

ML062060436
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	07/05/2006
From:	Reynolds D - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
%dam200612
Download: ML062060436 (3)

Text

J7OlI q; V I1; ~ * - u~ mlu v *m ** l'*~ y J .IIIIIIOOIVJI Il~A**

i* mll

• la v From: "Dotty Reynolds" <ddreynolds@all2ez.net>

To: <OysterCreekEIS @nrc.gov>

Date: Wed, Jul 5, 2006 4:57 PM

Subject:

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing COMMENTS FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT PUBLIC HEARINGS, JULY 12,2006 No one expected a tsunami wave to sweep across Indonesia, leaving a swath of death and destruction. No one thought a category 5 hurricane would strike the Gulf coast, causing levees to collapse in New Orleans. No one believed terrorists could fly into the world trade center, collapsing the twin towers and killing almost 3,000 people. No one expects a nuclear accident of catastrophic proportions at Oyster Creek, but should we trust the oldest nuclear plant in the U.S. to operate safely for another 20 years?

It is imperative that all safety factors and concerns be examined.

How can the NRC be allowed to ignore issues which the State of New Jersey considers important? The steel drywell liner, the barrier preventing the release of radiation during a reactor accident, needs close scrutiny. Why are tests not being done now to measure the thickness of the drywell liner, despite previous evidence of corrosion? Should we risk a terrorist attack at the site of a nuclear plant with on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel? In the event of an accident, the evacuation route is unworkable for much of the area, including all of Long Beach Island.

We do know that millions of small fish, shrimp and other aquatic animals are currently being killed due to the fact that the plant has no water cooling towers. Cooling towers are a necessity to prevent these losses of marine life which are trapped against water intake screens, or drawn into the plant, or killed by the change in water temperature in the bay. Restoring wetlands is not a reasonable alternative.

The NRC may do doing an extensive in depth review, but unless all concerns are considered objectively, the results will be flawed. If the nuclear plant is deemed necessary for power, then a new plant as planned in the 70's, should replace the current obsolete plant with one in the new safer design.

In spite of the best maintenance and replacement of parts, the older our car, the greater the likelihood our car will break down. If we want to ensure that we will get to work every day, safely, we routinely replace our car with a new one. How long would we continue to drive a car, or should we operate a nuclear plant, which could break down with dire consequences?

The decision regarding license renewal could mean life or death for thousands; the potential health, safety and economic impacts on New Jersey are enormous. Congressman Jim Saxton, in support of requests by many elected officials and citizen groups, has introduced H.R.

966, a bill that would require an independent assessment of safety and security issues by the National Academy of Sciences Research Council. It is imperative that the Academy of Sciences determine that Oyster Creek nuclear plant is safe, secure and necessary, prior

-'401 IU%11001 I 10vul"'We Y %OyiIIIIIloolul I r1tval itIV Page 2 to NRC relicensing approval, or Oyster Creek must be shut down.

$4.95/mo. National Dialup, Anti-Spam, Anti-Virus, 5mb personal web space. 5x faster dialup for only

$9.95/mo. No contracts, No fees, No Kidding! See http://www.AI12Easy.net for more details!

Page 1 Mail Envelope Properties (44AC27BA.47B : 12: 13435)

Subject:

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing Creation Date Wed, Jul 5, 2006 4:57 PM From: "Dotty Reynolds" <ddreynolds @all2ez.net>

Created By: ddreynolds@ alI2ez.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO01 .HQGWDO0I OysterCreekEIS Post Office Route TWGWPO01.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3115 Wednesday, July 5, 2006 4:57 PM Mime.822 4261 Options Expiration Date: None t Priority: High ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled