|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML19004A0752019-01-0303 January 2019
Comment of Janet Tauro on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML19003A2422018-12-28028 December 2018
Comment of Donald Weigl on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18362A0952018-12-23023 December 2018
Comment of Gary Defranco of Trans Tech Industries on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18324A7762018-11-18018 November 2018
Comment (2) of Alfred Decker on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18302A2232018-10-29029 October 2018
Comment (1) of Brain Kube on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18255A0422018-09-12012 September 2018
Comment (3) of Ron Martyn on Behalf of Community Civic Affairs Group on Decommissioning Creek Nuclear of Exelon'S Oyster Generating Station
ML11264A0902011-09-13013 September 2011
Comment (8) of John Runyan, on Behalf of Self, on Consideration of Rulemaking to Address Prompt Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations
ML0822000512008-07-0909 July 2008
Comment (2) of David P. Helker, on Behalf of Exelon and Amergen, Concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1195, Availability of Electric Power Sources.
ML0808604892008-03-13013 March 2008
Comment (4) of David P. Helker on Behalf of Exelon Generation and Amergen Supporting Draft Regulatory Guide DG-5015, Training and Qualification of Security Personnel at Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities.
ML0720501772007-04-26026 April 2007
Local Area Personal Income
ML0706600532007-02-21021 February 2007
Comment (1) of John Filippelli on Behalf of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Renewal of Operating License for Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0630703242006-10-21021 October 2006
Comment (2) of Raymond Tierney, on Reactor Oversight Process as Described in Solicitation Letter #7590-01-P
ML0628605662006-09-15015 September 2006
2006/09/15-Comment (1) of J. Lipoti Supporting to the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03 for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analyses
ML0626102482006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (20) of Willie Decamp Regarding Waste Accumulation for Oyster Creek License Renewal
ML0626800332006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (23) of Richard Webster, on NUREG-1437:Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Supplement 28, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Draft Report for Comment: Comment on Safety & Secu
ML0626504562006-09-14014 September 2006
Comment (22) of Mary Miazza, Opposing Relicensing of 35 Year Old Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0626203482006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (21) of Kenneth C. Koschek on License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0626102442006-09-13013 September 2006
2006/09/13-Comment (18) of Jennifer Samson on Behalf of Clean Ocean Action and American Littoral Society on NUREG-1437: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Suppl, 28, Oyster Creek Draft Report for C
ML0626102452006-09-12012 September 2006
Comment (19) of Edith Gbur Re Oyster Creek EIS
ML0626102362006-09-11011 September 2006
Comment (12) of Eugene Creamer on Nrc'S Environmental Impact Statement for Renewal of License for Oyster Creek
ML0626103592006-09-11011 September 2006
Comment (11) of Richard Webster, Resending EIS Comments
ML0626104162006-09-0808 September 2006
Comment (10) of Raechelle Edwards on Behalf of Julia Lemense Huff Re Renewal of Oyster Creek License
ML0626102422006-09-0707 September 2006
2006/09/07-Comment (16) of John Filippelli on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Oyster Creek. Recommends That the Final SEIS Address Opportunities for Pollution Prevention & Waste Recycling
ML0626102342006-09-0707 September 2006
Comment (9) of Robert Scro on Behalf of Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Opposing the Generic Environmental Impact Station for Oyster Creek,
ML0625501632006-09-0606 September 2006
Comment (5) of Jessie Carr, Re Comments on Draft Supplement 28 to GEIS (NUREG-1437) Specific to Application for 20-Year License Extension for Oyster Creek Generating Station
ML0625501702006-09-0505 September 2006
Comment (8) of Tom D. Jones Voicing Concerns and Objections to Relicensing of Nuclear Power Plant in Lacey Township, Nj
ML0626102402006-09-0404 September 2006
Comment (15) of Mary Mazza Opposing Relicensing Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant; So Much Technology for Safer Cleaner Energy Alternatives Are Now Available and During the Next 5 Years, More Will Be
ML0626102392006-09-0404 September 2006
Comment (14) of Joan K. Rubin and Gail Marsh Saxer, League of Women Voters, on Nrc'S Draft Generic Environmental Impact Study for Re-Licensing of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. League Supports Recommendation by the State of Nj
ML0625501682006-09-0101 September 2006
Comment (7) of David J. Mckeon, Re Oyster Creek EIS - Question on Strontium-90 Emission
ML0630001342006-08-30030 August 2006
Comment (27) of Diane Lazinsky Regarding the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Geis) for License Renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (NUREG-1437, Suppl. 28)
ML0625501582006-08-30030 August 2006
2006/08/30-Comment (3) of Michael J. Kennish on Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Geis) Regarding License Renewal of Oyster Creek
ML0625501662006-08-30030 August 2006
Comment (6) of Edith Gbur, Re Questions Regarding EIS
ML0625501612006-08-28028 August 2006
2006/08/28-Comment (4) of Michael P. Gallagher on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 28 Regarding Oyster Creek, Dated June 2006
ML0624800412006-08-0909 August 2006
2006/08/09-Comment (2) of Jim Saxton Opposing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Issued as Part of the Operating License Renewal Process for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Facility in Forked River, New Jersey
ML0620503092006-07-14014 July 2006
Comment (1) of Joseph Mangano on Renewal of Oyster Creek License for Another 20 Years. Urges NRC to Thoroughly Examine Potential Health Risks from Plant Using Available Data
ML0630001172006-07-13013 July 2006
Comment (26) of Pat Crocker Supporting License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Station
ML0630001062006-07-0505 July 2006
Comment (24) of Dotty Reynolds on Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant License Renewal Hearings
ML0436200752004-12-10010 December 2004
Comment (10) of Jill Lipoti on Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, Dated October 25, 2004
ML0300204912002-12-16016 December 2002
Comment from Jill Lipoti on the Third Year of Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)
2019-01-03
[Table view] |
Text
..... ... ....... -.... ... ... ..c .....ea.. ..... ....Regulatory..........
....... ... ......Com m ission........
....... ... .......Heari.......
........g.....P a ...I Oys_ýý[qýeqkEIS
-U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing_,P~a__e__lI 7~/f/~ ~$From: To: Date:
Subject:
"Dotty Reynolds" <ddreynolds@all2ez.net>
<OysterCreekEIS@nrc.gov>
Wed, Jul 5, 2006 4:57 PM 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.
ii 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?
0'-ri-i C/)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 G &2, /, '_Z~/(/A7;ý%
Oyst&OreekEIS-US-uclear Regul-ator-y Co-m-m-i-s-sio"n
'H-e-a~r-i-ng 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.Al12Easy.net for more details!
I: \teTqýqyý1000043MP Page 1 1 I c:\tem~p\GW}OOOQ4.TMP Page 1!Mail Envelope Properties (44AC27BA.47B
- 12: 13435)
Subject:
Creation Date From: Created By: U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing Wed, Jul 5, 2006 4:57 PM*"Dotty Reynolds" <ddreynolds(qall2ez.net>
ddreynolds(aall2ez.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO01 .HQGWDO01 OysterCreekEIS Post Office TWGWPO01 .HQGWDOO1 Route nrc.gov Files MESSAGE Mime.822 Options Expiration Date: Priority: ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security: Size 3115 4261 Date & Time Wednesday, July 5, 2006 4:57 PM None High No None No 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