ML080460530
| ML080460530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/2008 |
| From: | Lindsey J - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
| References | |
| 72FR72774 00001 | |
| Download: ML080460530 (1) | |
Text
7c;Zlý6A7$
0 Joy Lindsey 4142 Woodcraft St.
Houston, TX 77025 February 6, 2008 R ULE S 17E 3TT.VES F-I JiO~i Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Chief:
I am writing to oppose any addition to the South Texas Nuclear plant in Bay City, Texas.
Federal Register/ Vol.72, No. 245/ Friday, December 21, 2007/Notices Page 72775 There are numerous reasons why the South Texas plant should, never have been permitted in the first place and should not be expanded.
- 1) Nuclear power is not competitive with other forms of power generation and requires taxpayer dollars to subsidize.
- 2) It has not been shown that there is a need for this expansion.
- 3) How can the generation of waste which we still do not know how to safely store be justified?
- 4) In light of recent hurricane activity in the Gulf and the prediction for more, the Gulf Coast does not seem to be the best location for any hazardous activity.
- 5) Much shoddy workmanship was exposed in the original construction of the South Texas Nuclear Plant.
Here's a relevant reminder from Associated Press in 2004:
In all, 7 million people in the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are estimated to suffer physical or psychological effects of radiation related to the April 26, 1986, catastrophe, when reactor No. 4 in Chernobyl exploded and caught fire.
An area half the size of Italy was contaminated, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to be resettled and ruining some of Europe's most fertile agricultural land, the United Nations said.
Why do we consider such a costly, potentially destructive, and unnecessary project instead of employing more benign solutions such as conservation, wind, and solar?
Please enter my objections to this expansion, Sincerely, Joy Lindsey 6 c' 6'
/9~6913
~
~y~yr~Q
(%z~