|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML14364A0122014-12-22022 December 2014 Comment (00011) of Anonymous Individual on Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report ML12032A0272011-12-19019 December 2011 Comment (4) of Raj Rana, on Behalf of Himself, on NUREG-1482, Rev 2, Appendix B ML11354A1102011-12-14014 December 2011 Comment (74) of Lois Duvall & Faith Ruffing on Behalf of Themselves Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to the GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11334A0682011-11-16016 November 2011 Comment (69) of Kris Watkins on Behalf of Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau, Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Operated by Energy Northwest ML11325A3172011-11-16016 November 2011 Comment (60) of Thomas Buchanan, on Behalf of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, on Relicensing Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A1812011-11-16016 November 2011 Comment (62) of Theodora Tsongas Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ML11325A1822011-11-16016 November 2011 Comment (63) of Laurence Vernhes Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant ML11325A3152011-11-16016 November 2011 Comment (59) Jill Reifschneider Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A3182011-11-16016 November 2011 Comment (61) of Allison Obrien on Behalf of Us Dept of the Interior, on Re-licensing of Columbia Generating Station ML11334A0692011-11-16016 November 2011 Comment (70) of Christine B. Reichgott on Behalf of Us Environmental Protection Agency, on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal of Columbia Generating Station License ML11325A3102011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (54) of Gerry Pollet, on Behalf of Heart of America, on Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Stati ML11325A2462011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (50) of Delbert Mccombs, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants & Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A3082011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (52) of Leslie March, on Behalf of the Sierra Club, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating ML11325A3092011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (53) of Janice Castle Opposing Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A1842011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (65) by James W. Sanders on Behalf of Benton Pud, Supporting Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station ML11325A1832011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (64) of Julie Longenecker on Behalf of Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, on Draft Supplemental EIS for License Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station ML11325A2472011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (51) of Eric Adman, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A3132011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (57) of Mary Twombly Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ML11325A3112011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (55) of Chandra Radiance on Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the Licenses Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A3142011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (58) of Charles Johnson, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A3122011-11-15015 November 2011 Comment (56) of Hafiz Heartsun, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing Re-Licensing of Columbia River Generation Station ML11325A2452011-11-14014 November 2011 Comment (49) of Susan Nash, Opposing NRC-2010-0029-0015, Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Gener ML11325A2442011-11-14014 November 2011 Comment (48) of Steven G Gilbert, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11325A2432011-11-14014 November 2011 Comment (47) of Jacqueline Sorgen on Behalf of Himself Opposed to Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Facility Operating License ML11325A2422011-11-12012 November 2011 Comment (46) of Louisa Hamachek, Opposing NRC-2010-0029-0015, Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings ML11325A1902011-11-10010 November 2011 Comment (66) of Michelle Caird on Behalf of Inland Power and Light Co., Supporting License Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station ML11334A0662011-11-10010 November 2011 Comment (67) of Stephen Posner on Behalf of the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on Columbia Generating Station Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement - Supplement 47 ML11334A0702011-11-0808 November 2011 Comment (71) of Commissioners on Behalf of Mason County Pud Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generatin ML11308A0302011-11-0101 November 2011 Comment (2) of Tom Clements on Behalf of Friends of the Earth, on Draft Strategic Plan About Testing of Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Made from Weapons-Grade Plutonium Required for NRC to License MOX Use in Boiling Water Reactors ML11318A2562011-10-25025 October 2011 Comment (45) of William Gordon, Et. Al., on Behalf of Franklin Pud, Supporting Energy Northwests License Renewal for Columbia Generating Station ML11305A0132011-10-19019 October 2011 Comment (43) of Henry T. Bernstein on Behalf of Himself, Opposing the Relicensing of the Columbia Generating Station ML11305A0122011-10-18018 October 2011 Comment (42) of Diana Thompson on Behalf of Public Utility District No. 2 of Pacific County in Support of Energy Northwests Application to Renew Columbia Generating Stations License for an Additional 25 Years ML11291A1352011-10-16016 October 2011 Comment (38) of Linda on Behalf of Self Opposing the Renewal of Columbia Generating Station License ML11293A0432011-10-13013 October 2011 Comment (41) of Leo Bowman, Shon Small & James Beaver on Behalf of Benton County, Wa, Board of Commissioners, Supporting the Relicensing of the Columbia Generating Station ML11293A0422011-10-11011 October 2011 Comment (40) of the Board of Commissioners for Mason County Public Utility District, Supporting the Renewal of Columbia Generating Stations Operating License for an Additional 20 Years ML11291A1572011-10-0505 October 2011 Comment (37) of Ken S. Berg on Behalf of Us Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, on Columbia Generating Station License Renewal Informal Consultation ML11280A1162011-10-0404 October 2011 Comment (31) of Unknown Individual Opposing License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11280A1172011-10-0404 October 2011 Comment (32) of Scott Mcdonald on License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11280A1152011-10-0303 October 2011 Comment (30) of Holly Graham Re Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11280A1102011-10-0101 October 2011 Comment (27) of Carol Hiltner Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11280A1092011-09-30030 September 2011 Comment (26) of Kathleen Wahl on NRC-2010-0029, Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal ML11280A1082011-09-30030 September 2011 Comment (25) of Martin Mijal Re Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11279A2462011-09-29029 September 2011 Comment (18) of Judy Ginn on Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11280A2002011-09-29029 September 2011 Comment (22) of Theodora Tsongas Re Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal ML11280A2032011-09-29029 September 2011 Comment (24) of Lonn Holman Re Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station ML11280A1202011-09-28028 September 2011 Comment (35) of Don C. Brunell, on Behalf of Association of Washington Business, Supporting License Renewal for Columbia Generating Station ML11279A2412011-09-28028 September 2011 Comment (13) of Tom May Requesting Regional Hearings on the Draft EIS for Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station ML11279A2432011-09-28028 September 2011 Comment (15) of Kathleen Bushman on NRC-2010-0029 - Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public ML11279A2452011-09-28028 September 2011 Comment (17) of Anne Moore on NRC-2010-0029 - Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetin ML11279A2402011-09-28028 September 2011 Comment (12) of Gary Petersen of Tridec on NRC-2010-0029 - Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and 2014-12-22
[Table view] |
Text
9/// / j'o//
Page 1 of 1 7
FP--- 5-Y6 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: November 17, 2011 Received: November 16, 2011 Status: PendingPost Tracking No. 80f6e0d6 Comments Due: November 16, 2011 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2010-0029 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Facility Operating License Comment On: NRC-2010-0029-0015 Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Document: NRC-2010-0029-DRAFT-0079 Comment on FR Doc # 2011-22415 Submitter Information Name: Theodora Tsongas Address: United States, General Comment I do not support the renewal of the Columbia Generating Station's license when it expires in 2023, for the reasons described in the attached file which provides details of my comments on the draft environmental impact statement :
Attachments
.1 Comments on the Columbia Generating Station License Renewal EIS
-4
-0 C-m C')
hnoetld=,090 6 4 ZFe https ://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?obj ectId=O90000648Of6e~d...
11 /17/2011
Comments on the Columbia Generating Station License Renewal EIS Theodora Tsongas, PhD, MS November 2011 I do not support the renewal of the Columbia Generating Station's (CGS) License when it expires in 2023, for the following reasons:
The CGS is not needed to meet future power generation needs: we can use our scarce resources to develop and use alternative sources that are safer, less expensive, and sustainable.
Generating nuclear power at the Columbia Generating Station is too dangerous to even permit the current license to continue in force. Apparently the safety review by the NRC was inadequate, giving little consideration to the long term and short term safety and health issues that are foremost in the concerns of the public who are and will be impacted by this facility.
We must act wisely and learn everything we can from the Fukushima disaster as it continues to unfold. Renewing the CGS license without thorough consideration of the valuable information being generated as a result of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster would be flying in the face of reason and rigorous science.
Any use of plutonium is unwarranted. We simply cannot afford the risks of irreversible harm to our health and the ecosystem that supports life on this planet. The EIS ignores the proposed plan to use plutonium fuel, the same fuel as Fukushima reactor 3 with grave risks and extensive radiation releases. The risks must be disclosed in the EIS. A technical analysis by Energy NW has pointed out that if a full load of plutonium fuel had been used in Reactor 3, the offsite radiation doses, already too high, would have been much higher. We cannot afford to take these risks in light of current knowledge.
The potential for a catastrophic incident, such as the overdue subduction zone earthquake in the Pacific Northwest, and its consequences, have not been considered in this Environmental Impact Statement, nor has seismic activity in the RGS region been adequately considered including current data connecting the Yakima fold and thrust belt to active faults in the Puget lowland.
Site-specific environmental impacts cannot be evaluated in isolation from the location of CGS in close proximity to the Hanford facility. The cumulative impact of these two joint facilities in an incident has not been considered in this EIS. Consideration of the dangerous location of the reactor on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation has not been adequately dealt with in the EIS. The EIS must consider the impacts if there is an explosion, fire, and or, earthquake with radiation and hazardous materials releases that could prevent operation or recovery of the CGS reactor. Hanford's high level waste tanks and highly contaminated buildings, including the building that ENW proposes to use for Plutionium fuel are not build to withstand the potential earthquakes. These risks must be described and evaluated in the EIS.
All safety considerations and analysis of back-up systems should be an integral part of this review. According to National Environmental Policy Act, all potential significant impacts need to be presented in one document to the public.
All alternative sources of energy need to be compared in terms of severe accident potential. This is a necessary addition to the EIS and this accident potential has not been used in the comparison, thus biasing the comparison in favor of more costly and riskier forms of energy.
NRC must consider stopping all license renewals and construction until a waste site has been found. Spent fuel and waste issues need to be considered for their interactions in catastrophic incidents. Continued operation with no place to safely store the waste is unconscionable!
The Generic EIS is 15 years old. It is not acceptable to use it in light of current science.
An appropriate EIS needs to look more specifically at each local situation. The potential for adverse health impacts at Hanford have not been adequately evaluated. Furthermore, in terms of inadequate transparency, this draft generic EIS is characterized by over-verbose reiterations of boiler-plate definitions but does not provide necessary detail on data and analyses used as the basis for conclusions drawn. The conclusions drawn on the safety of the Columbia Generating Station appear to be arbitrary and not supported by the evidence provided in the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
How can an environmental impact statement be considered complete without a thorough review of the safety of this facility. Why is the safety evaluation not part of this EIS?
Why is consideration of the NRC's examination of the Fukushima disaster and the impact of such a disaster on the spent fuel pools not considered in this examination of the CGS?
Why is it not part of the license renewal process? If it is part of another process, why is that not transparent and referenced in this document? Why is there no opportunity for public comments on reactor safeguards? These are our tax dollars that you are spending, without our permission! [Wallstreet won't take the financial risks; why should we?]