|
|---|
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 O'Brien 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 Northwest'S 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 Northwest'S Application to Renew Columbia Generating Station'S 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 Station'S 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
Dan, Here are some comments from the WA State Department of Health. In addition to these comments we request that you cover the NRC's findings post Fukushima and how these findings will be considered for the CGS license renewal. There is much interest in this topic.
Sincerely, T :-
Lynn Albin >'
Non-WDOH comments:
" Page 2-21, Lines 36040. Paragraph states that a component of the environmental monitoring U-)
program's water quality monitoring program was discontinued in 1.995 after "years of data showed no discernable changes in river water quality..". Since no information is given for when that part of the program began, there is no way for the public or the decision maker to quantify the study.
- Page 2-26, Lines 6-11. Paragraph states that there is a limited number of groundwater-supply wells that provide drinking water. The paragraph lists three wells at FFTF, one well at the Hanford Patrol Training Center, and one at the Yakima Barricade. However, LIGO takes drinking water from a well.
This should be listed also.
- Page 2-27, Line 14. Sentence states that the Columbia River crosses the west of the CGS site. The Columbia River is actually to the east of the site.
" General comment. The shrub-steppe ecosystem is prone to fire. In June of 2000, a fire burned over 200,000 acres of Hanford and neighboring property. Several other fires have been in the 10,000 to 100,000 acre range. There should be a discussion of fire risk in the EIS.
- Page 2-7 1, Line 20. Should be spelled "McChord".
- Page 2-17, Line 21. Should be "Yakima Training Center". Please note that the county and city are spelled Y-A-K-I-M-A. The Native American tribe is spelled Y-A-K-A-M-A.
- General Comment. In the cumulative impacts, there is no mention of the Pomona Heights to Vantage 230 kV line to be constructed by PacifiCorp starting in 2012. BLM is doing the EIS with Yakima Training Center as a cooperating agency.
WDOH Comments General Comment. The draft GEIS does not do any analysis based on Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. In the document, the only mention of schools concerns public schools and their enrollment but ignores the private schools in the area. Also, it should be noted that within eight miles of CGS are at least 2 schools. Country Haven Academy is a private school and Edwin Markham elementary is a public school. Combined enrollment is around 300 students.
Impact analysis should be in accordance with EO 13045. It is acknowledged that NRC
regulations consider radio-sensitivity differences of gender and age, however an EIS considers all effects to the environment, just not the radiological. Analysis of non-nuclear alternatives would therefore not consider health of children in this EIS. Also, although the NRC can disregard EO 13045 as an independent regulatory agency, it would seem to be an incomplete analysis of the proposed action and the alternatives.
" General Comment. In Section 4, the radiological environmental monitoring program is described. Starting on page 4-15, the "Special Interest Monitoring Stations" are described and is said to be done to comply with EFSEC resolutions. However, nowhere in the document does it state why the monitoring is done at those locations. At the very least, they should list the resolution that the monitoring station was developed for. NEPA documents are public disclosure documents and should give members of the public background on which to base their comments.
- General Comment. Section 4.3.3. states that there is infiltration of circulating cooling water into the groundwater through the drywells around the cooling towers. It does not appear that there was analysis of the effects to the movement of the plume beneath CGS toward the Columbia River or other facilities.
- Section 8.1.3. This section states that impact to surface-water quality would be small.
Although this might be true, more consideration should be taken of the additional impermeable surfaces of the 135 acres for the new facility. This comment also holds true for Section 8.2.3 and the additional 500 acres of impermeable surfaces.
" Section 8.5.8. The analysis of the socioeconomic impact should probably be moderate.
Reasoning for this would be that non-renewal of CGS would cause the decommissioning to be done earlier. This action would coincide to a large degree with the loss of Hanford jobs due to ending of much of the cleanup there. Between the two actions, there would be a large effect to the local socioeconomic conditions of the local region.
