|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML24212A1312024-07-29029 July 2024
Comment (71) of Mary Quinn on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment
ML15138A1032015-04-29029 April 2015
Comment (1) of Christine Arnott Opposing Behalf of Delaware River Keeper on Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
ML14356A1862014-12-16016 December 2014
Comment (26) of an Individual Opposing on Hope Creek and Salem Expanding Nuclear Power Facilities
ML14302A0762014-10-21021 October 2014
Comment (00002) of John Cannon Opposing on Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit at the PSEG Site
ML12334A3952012-11-22022 November 2012
Comment (99) of Steve Shuput on Consideration on Environmental Impacts on Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML12334A3932012-11-21021 November 2012
Comment (97) of Donna Selquist on Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML12334A3882012-11-21021 November 2012
Comment (92) of Geri Collecchia on Consideration on Environmental Impacts on Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML11266A1502011-09-21021 September 2011
Comment (6) of Christi Demark Opposed to the Proposal by PSEG to Start a Pilot Project to Product Cobalt-60 at Hope Creek Generating Station
ML1100602872010-12-16016 December 2010
Comment (5) of Grace Musumeci, on Behalf of Us Environmental Protection Agency, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Draft Supplement 45 Regarding Hope Creek and Salem Units 1 & 2
ML1035600192010-12-16016 December 2010
Comment (3) of Robert K. Marshall, on Behalf of New Jersey Energy Coalition, on NRC Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal Regarding Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2
ML1032300472010-11-0808 November 2010
Comment (1) of Stephen M. Sweeney on Behalf of New Jersey Senate, Supporting PSEGs Application to Construct a New Nuclear Generating Facility in Salem County
ML1035104262010-11-0505 November 2010
Comment (1) of Marv Lewis on Proposal to Extend the Operating Life of Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant Along with the Salem Units 1 & 2 by 20 Years Reeks with Betrayal of Responsibility to Protect the Public
ML1009500372010-04-0101 April 2010
Comment (5) of Leigh Davis, Dena Jaborska, Wenonah Hauter, Amy Goldsmith, Jeff Tittel, William Kibler, Jennifer Coffey & Norm Cohen on Behalf of Food & Water Watch Opposing Proposal of PSEG to Start a Pilot Project to Produce Cobalt-60 at H
ML1009205462010-03-31031 March 2010
Comment (1) of John D. Greenhill on Behalf of Himself Regarding Re-Licensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML1009701262010-03-31031 March 2010
Comment (3) of 243 Individuals Regarding Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and Order
ML1009205492010-03-26026 March 2010
Comment (4) of David A. Lochbaum on Behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists on the Proposal of PSEG to Load Cobalt-60 Producing Rods in Reactor Core at Hope Creek
ML1009205482010-03-25025 March 2010
Comment (2) of William H. Day Supporting Proposal to Produce Cobalt-60 at Hope Creek
ML1009205472010-03-16016 March 2010
Comment (1) of William E. Morris on PSEGs Plan to Produce Cobalt-60 Which Can Be Used to Promote and Maintain Human Health
ML1022805622009-11-30030 November 2009
Comment (8) of Norm Cohen, on Behalf of the Unplug Salem Campaign, on Environmental Review of the Relicensing of Hope Creek
ML1022805602009-11-0505 November 2009
Comment (6) of Fred Stine on Behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network on PSEG Nuclears License Renewal for Salem Generating Station
ML1022805552009-11-0404 November 2009
Comment (1) of John D. Greenhill on Behalf of Himself Regarding Salem and Hope Nuclear Plants 20 Year License Extensions
ML1022805592009-11-0303 November 2009
Comment (5) of Ellen B. Pompper, on Behalf of Self, Supporting PSEG Nuclears License Renewal for Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations
ML1022805572009-10-24024 October 2009
Comment (3) of David O. Rickards on Behalf of Instream Energy, LLC Re Hearing on Salem/Hope Creek Nuclear Plant
ML1022805582009-10-12012 October 2009
Comment (4) of Gina Carola on Behalf of Sierra Club, Resolution Passed by New Jersey Chapter of Sierra Requesting NRC & New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection Require Pse&G to Erect Cooling Towers
ML1022805562009-09-0707 September 2009
Comment (2) of Sidney J. Goodman Opposing on License Renewal for the Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plants
ML1022805612009-09-0303 September 2009
Comment (7) of William R. Dunn, Supporting Salem and Hope Creek License Renewal Applications
ML0719402422007-06-0101 June 2007
Comment (1) of Patrick Mulligan on Behalf of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, Regarding Hope Creek License Change Request (LCR) H05-01 Extended Power Uprate
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
ML0333808232003-11-30030 November 2003
Comment (4) of Norm Cohen Re 30 Day Comment Extension on Draft Criteria That Would Codify Currently non-compliant Actions and Forgive Long Standing and Widespread Fire Protection Violations at Nuclear Power Stations
2024-07-29
[Table view] |
Text
From:
wdunn302@comcast.net Sent:
Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:55 AM To:
Ashley, Donnie Cc:
Bill Dunn
Subject:
Comments On Salem and Hope Creek License Application William R Dunn Elsmere, Delaware J
September 3, 2009 Donnie Ashley, Project Manager Division of License Renewal 47I Office o Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear regulatory Commission, Mail Stop 01 -Fl Washington, DC 20555 301-415-3191 N)
-o r-H-C/)
Reference:
LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION Salem Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 Unit 2 Facility Operating License No. DPR-75
/~2/~3 c~67
'~
/S~
Dear Mr. Ashely,
As a former management consultant for a number of EPA 208 Water Quality Area-Wide pollution control programs, I am very much interested in reviewing projects that may have a significant impact on the environment as well as the need to sustain a reliable physical infrastructure that supports our economy and standard of living. Having also worked in Haiti as a consultant, I experienced first hand routine electrical blackouts, an unreliable turn-of-the-ninetieth century telephone system, and other infrastructure shortcomings for drinking water and transportation. We take the safety and reliable delivery of these type services for granted in the United States. Electrical generation is the critical infrastructure component that the rest of the economy depends.
I have reviewed the applications for both the Hope Creek and Salem nuclear facilities and would make the following comments:
Hope Creek and Salem Applications 66r2 ee-YT 2)"e*
11 1 A'
The environmental impact appears to be minimal for granting an extension of the facilities license and there is certainly a justified need to upgrade portions of nuclear power generating operations to replace aging equipment that will improve the power generating capabilities and mitigate safety issues of an aging plant.
Secondly, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas (C02) and consequently would be a more attractive alternative to burning coal or natural gas.
Third, based on my research on the emerging nuclear fusion technology, the disposal of nuclear waste will be one day be safely transmuted to useful isotopes. Nuclear fusion and fission will be paired to provide almost unlimited power without the issue of residual radioactivity.
Fourth, the option of purchasing more electricity by de-commissioning these facilities will likely require modifying and building additional transmission lines to support this option. This will have a far more deleterious affect on the environment and communities where these lines will be constructed that continuing to operating these nuclear facilities. Furthermore, importing electricity will likely originate from either coal or gas fired units that produced the greenhouse gases C02 (and other pollutants) as compared to nuclear power that generates zero greenhouse gas.
Recommendation I endorse the granting of these facilities a license extension for the aforementioned reasons and would further recommend that these sites be replaced with new state of the art nuclear power plants that would have additional electrical generating capacity. Nuclear power has proven to be a reliable and cost-effective source of electricity and would provide the basis for pairing with nuclear fusion technology in approximately 20 years that would meet our countries energy needs as well as safeguard our environment.
Please feel free to contact me if you require additional information or comment.
Very truly yours, William R Dunn
