|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML22119A0112021-12-31031 December 2021
Comment (42) of Sierra Club, Lower Hudson Group on Holtec'S Decommissioning Plan for Indian Point
ML21299A1592021-10-26026 October 2021
Comment (35) of Theresa Knickerbocker on Comments on NRC Public Meeting on the Holtec PSDAR
ML21295A2342021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (28) of Susan Van Dolsen on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A0302021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (25) of Pete Harckham on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1522021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (4) of Courtney M. Williams on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A7252021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (31) of Courtney M. Williams on Behalf of Safe Energy Rights Group on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A4032021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (29) of Mary Finneran Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A7242021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (30) of Dan Galinko on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1692021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (39) of Bonnie Webber on Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1622021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (36) of Catherine Skopic on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1672021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (37) of Ellen Weininger on Behalf of Grassroots Environmental Educational on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1572021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (34) of Michel Lee on Docket Id NRC-2021-0125. Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR)
ML21295A7262021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (32) of Doug Couchon on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1682021-10-22022 October 2021
Comment (38) of Richard Webster on Behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc., on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21294A3752021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (24) of Jacquelyn Drechsler and Jocelyn Decrescenzo on Indian Point Regarding the Casks and Canisters for Containment of Radioactive Nuclear Waste
ML21294A0762021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (21) of J. Mullee of Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21294A3032021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (23) of Pete Harckham on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21299A1562021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (33) of Alyse Peterson on Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A2322021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (27) of Jeff Schumann on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21295A0322021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (26) of Sandy Galef on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML22119A0102021-10-21021 October 2021
Comment (41) of Laura Burkhardt on Decommissioning of Indian Point
ML21293A2082021-10-20020 October 2021
Comment (20) of Nivo Rovedo on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A2072021-10-20020 October 2021
Comment (19) of Patrick Hewes on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A2052021-10-19019 October 2021
Comment (18) of Patrick Hewes on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A1162021-10-17017 October 2021
Comment (3) of T. Reidsr on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21293A2002021-10-15015 October 2021
Comment (17) of Benjamin Boykin, Alfreda A. Williams Et. Al. on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21286A7622021-10-10010 October 2021
Comment (16) of Daria Gregg on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5562021-10-0505 October 2021
Comment (11) of John Spring on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21278A8672021-10-0505 October 2021
Comment (15) of Marsha Upton on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5582021-10-0101 October 2021
Comment (12) of Kale Roberts on Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5632021-09-22022 September 2021
Comment (14) of Marilyn Mitchell on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5592021-09-12012 September 2021
Comment (13) of Amy Mott on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21274A5552021-09-0505 September 2021
Comment (10) of Madeleine Glick on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21243A4392021-08-23023 August 2021
Comment (2) of J. M. Singletary on Behalf of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning
ML21218A0922021-08-0505 August 2021
Comment (9) of Catherine Skopic on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21218A0912021-08-0404 August 2021
Comment (8) of Dale Saltzman on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC; Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3;Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21215A3282021-08-0101 August 2021
Comment (7) of Marie Inserra on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21211A0772021-07-29029 July 2021
Comment (7) of Stephen Kent on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21215A3272021-07-29029 July 2021
Comment (6) of Stephen Kent on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21210A1462021-07-28028 July 2021
Comment (06) of Linda D. Puglisi on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21215A3302021-07-28028 July 2021
Comment (1) of Linda D. Puglisi on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1332021-07-23023 July 2021
Comment (3) of Buddy Buchanan on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1352021-07-23023 July 2021
Comment (5) of Buddy Buchanan on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1342021-07-23023 July 2021
Comment (4) of Buddy Buchanan on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML21204A1312021-03-0101 March 2021
Comment (1) of Herschel Specter on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML19108A3062019-04-18018 April 2019
Comment (23) of Joan Vogt on Agency Activities in Response to a Portion of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act
ML18192B9652018-07-0808 July 2018
Comment (108) of Jacuelyn Drechsler Opposing Draft Letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute Regarding the Clarification of Regulatory Paths for Lead Test Assemblies
ML17188A3332017-07-0707 July 2017
Public Comments on Indian Point License Renewal L11 - Comment of Andrew Raddant on Behalf of Us Department of Interior
ML17188A3392017-07-0707 July 2017
Public Comments on Indian Point License Renewal L14 - Comment of Susan Shapiro on Behalf of Phase
ML17188A3382017-07-0707 July 2017
Public Comments on Indian Point License Renewal L13 - Comment of John Sipos
2021-09-05
[Table view] |
Text
From: <RoycePenstinger@aol.com>
To:
<Palisadesart@aol.com>,<acer8sac@comcast.net>,<gclary@lohud.com>,<editor@ncnl ocal.com>,"Francis Cameron" <FXC@nrc.gov>,<CHAIRMAN@nrc.gov>,"Pao-Tsin Kuo"
<PTK@nrc.gov>,<IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov>,"Neil Sheehan" <NAS@nrc.gov>,"Richard Barkley"
<RSB1@nrc.gov>,<deb@nukebusters.org>,<crotonshaw@optonline.net>,<garyfromvermont@ya hoo.com>,<indianpointsec@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 9/21/2007 1:00:08 AM
Subject:
Why EIS for Indian Point Should Include Terrorist Attack Environmental Costs Dear Chairman This is a formal request under the guidelines of 10 CFR 2.206 to have the Environmental Costs of a Terrorist Attack included in the EIS Scoping for the Indian Point Nuclear Reactors. It has wrongfully been the contention of the NRC and the nuclear industry (NEI) that the odds of a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor site are so remote as to be unworthy of consideration in the EIS Scoping process. As the below shown slide exhibits, another agency of the Federal Government disagrees with you, and your agency. If necessary, I am prepared to offer proof found on OTHER United States Government sites in support of this Formal Petition that show the Federal Government does feel there exists a real chance that terrorists could mount a attack on a nuclear reactor facility.
Is this slide proof that the NRC is lying to us when they say the risk of a Terrorist Attack on a nuclear reactor is so remote as to be not worth consideration in the License Renewal process under the requirements of NEPA?
One can assume, that reasonable minds would say it is proof that the NRC is, and has been lying to the public in a wrongful attempt to protect their licensees, and provide them with and easier pathway to License Renewal Application approval. One thing is clear...the slide presents absolute governmentally created PROOF that a terrorist attack on a nuclear site, and the resultant Environmental Costs is worthy of INCLUSION in the EIS Scoping for Indian Point. The CDC slide is absolute proof that our Federal Government believes there is a VERY REAL CHANCE and/or the potential for such and attack on a nuclear reactor site, and thus the Environmental Costs of such a potential attack scenario MUST BE INCLUDED in the EIS Scoping process for Indian Point units IP2 and IP3.
The question is begged, "If, as the NRC claims, said risk scenario is not
worthy of consideration, then why does the Centers For Disease Control consider it at the top of their list of Radiological Terrorist Scenarios in one of their slide presentations?"
In light of this GOVERNMENTAL PROOF, I hereby formally request that the Environmental Costs of a targeted terrorist attack on Indian Point be included in the scoping process for Indian Point. Specifically, I want included in the EIS Scoping process as a part of this 2.206 Petition the environmental cost studies for individual targeted terrorist attacks on individual locations/components at the facility, such as a successful attack on a singular spent fuel pool, or singular reactor, as well as the environmental costs of a targeted terrorist attack on multiple component parts of the facility, such as two spent fuel pools, a spent fuel pool and a reactor, or a successful attack on both reactors, or all three spent fuel pools.
Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA Vice President 914 734 1955 351 Dyckman Street Peekskill, New York 10566 For those outside the NRC receiving this, please send in similar 2.206 petitions supporting our cause, and see that this Formal 2.206 Petition receives WIDE DISTRIBUTION. We want it emailed out, and posted up anywhere and everywhere we can get it. Every aging reactor community deserves to have the Environmental Costs of a terrorist attack included in the Relicensing EIS Scoping Process. Also, look for the formal launch of our website at _www.fuseusa.org_
(http://www.fuseusa.org)
_Potential Health Problems from Exposure to Selected Radionuclides - Hanford Health Information Network - WA State Dept. of He.._
(http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/overview/radionuclides.html)
Federal Register Notice: 72FR45075 Comment Number: 25 Mail Envelope Properties (47304C7B.HQGWDO01.OWGWPO04.200.200000E.1.140EA4.1)
Subject:
Why EIS for Indian Point Should Include Terrorist Attack Environmental Costs Creation Date: 9/21/2007 1:00:08 AM From: <RoycePenstinger@aol.com>
Created By: RoycePenstinger@aol.com Recipients
<Palisadesart@aol.com>
<acer8sac@comcast.net>
<gclary@lohud.com>
<editor@ncnlocal.com>
"Francis Cameron" <FXC@nrc.gov>
<CHAIRMAN@nrc.gov>
"Pao-Tsin Kuo" <PTK@nrc.gov>
<IndianPointEIS@nrc.gov>
"Neil Sheehan" <NAS@nrc.gov>
"Richard Barkley" <RSB1@nrc.gov>
<deb@nukebusters.org>
<crotonshaw@optonline.net>
<garyfromvermont@yahoo.com>
<indianpointsec@yahoogroups.com>
Post Office Route OWGWPO04.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3831 9/21/2007 1:00:08 AM TEXT.htm 5078 11/6/2007 11:14:03 AM Untitled.jpg 150037 11/6/2007 11:14:03 AM Mime.822 216987 11/6/2007 11:14:03 AM Options Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard
Page 1 of 2 Dear Chairman This is a formal request under the guidelines of 10 CFR 2.206 to have the Environmental Costs of a Terrorist Attack included in the EIS Scoping for the Indian Point Nuclear Reactors. It has wrongfully been the contention of the NRC and the nuclear industry (NEI) that the odds of a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor site are so remote as to be unworthy of consideration in the EIS Scoping process. As the below shown slide exhibits, another agency of the Federal Government disagrees with you, and your agency. If necessary, I am prepared to offer proof found on OTHER United States Government sites in support of this Formal Petition that show the Federal Government does feel there exists a real chance that terrorists could mount a attack on a nuclear reactor facility.
Is this slide proof that the NRC is lying to us when they say the risk of a Terrorist Attack on a nuclear reactor is so remote as to be not worth consideration in the License Renewal process under the requirements of NEPA? One can assume, that reasonable minds would say it is proof that the NRC is, and has been lying to the public in a wrongful attempt to protect their licensees, and provide them with and easier pathway to License Renewal Application approval. One thing is clear...the slide presents absolute governmentally created PROOF that a terrorist attack on a nuclear site, and the resultant Environmental Costs is worthy of INCLUSION in the EIS Scoping for Indian Point. The CDC slide is absolute proof that our Federal Government believes there is a VERY REAL CHANCE and/or the potential for such and attack on a nuclear reactor site, and thus the Environmental Costs of such a potential attack scenario MUST BE INCLUDED in the EIS Scoping process for Indian Point units IP2 and IP3.
The question is begged, "If, as the NRC claims, said risk scenario is not worthy of consideration, then why does the Centers For Disease Control consider it at the top of their list of Radiological Terrorist Scenarios in one of their slide presentations?"
In light of this GOVERNMENTAL PROOF, I hereby formally request that the Environmental Costs of a targeted terrorist attack on Indian Point be included in the scoping process for Indian Point. Specifically, I want included in the EIS Scoping process as a part of this 2.206 Petition the environmental cost studies for individual targeted terrorist attacks on individual locations/components at the facility, such as a successful attack on a singular spent fuel pool, or singular reactor, as well as the environmental costs of a targeted terrorist attack on multiple component parts of the facility, such as two spent fuel pools, a spent fuel pool and a reactor, or a successful attack on both reactors, or all three spent fuel pools.
Sherwood Martinelli FUSE USA Vice President 914 734 1955 351 Dyckman Street Peekskill, New York 10566 For those outside the NRC receiving this, please send in similar 2.206 petitions supporting our cause, and see that this Formal 2.206 Petition receives WIDE DISTRIBUTION. We want it emailed out, and posted up anywhere and everywhere we can get it. Every aging reactor community deserves to have the Environmental Costs of a terrorist attack included in the Relicensing EIS Scoping Process. Also, look for the formal launch of our website at www.fuseusa.org Potential Health Problems from Exposure to Selected Radionuclides - Hanford Health Information Network - WA State Dept. of He..
file://C:\EMailCapture\IndianPointLRScoping\25\attch1.htm 11/6/2007
Page 2 of 2 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
file://C:\EMailCapture\IndianPointLRScoping\25\attch1.htm 11/6/2007
Page 1 of 1 file://C:\EMailCapture\IndianPointLRScoping\25\attch2.jpg 11/6/2007
