ML16081A468
| ML16081A468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/15/2016 |
| From: | Shapiro R - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| References | |
| 80FR72358 00075, ANPR-140, ANPR-26, ANPR-50, ANPR-52, ANPR-73, NRC-2015-0070 | |
| Download: ML16081A468 (3) | |
Text
1 Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:41 PM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource
Subject:
Comment on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for
Decommissioning Attachments:
NRC-2015-0070-DRAFT-0069.pdf DOCKETED BY USNRC-OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 FRN#: 80FR72358 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2015-0070 SECY DOCKET DATE: 3/17/16 TITLE: Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors COMMENT#: 075
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 3/17/16 3:42 PM Received:
March 15, 2016 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.
1k0-8oim-m1ht Comments Due:
March 18, 2016 Submission Type:
Web Docket: NRC-2015-0070Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning Comment On:
NRC-2015-0070-0007Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors; Extension of Comment Period Document:
NRC-2015-0070-DRAFT-0069 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-32599 Submitter Information Name: Rosanne Shapiro Address: 339 Leighton's Lane
Harwich, MA, 02645Email: lunaseacreations@verizon.net General Comment I live on Cape Cod, downwind of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) in Plymouth. PNPS is scheduled to close no later than 2019. It is the exact same model as the Fukishima Plant that had a significant meltdown
in 2011. There have been numerous incidents - fortunately none as serious as Fukishima - that have led many citizens groups to call for closure long before its parent corporation, Entergy, made the decision referred to
above, and the decision was economically/financially based - consideration was not given to those of us who live in an area that would be uninhabitable should there be an accident, not to mention the extreme health &
safety risks such an event would create.
Now, we are facing a different set of challenges with regard to the decommissioning process. These challenges are (in part) financial in terms of the cost of decommissioning. We have been told that the funds
set aside by Entergy for this process are inadequate. This means that - unless there is a radical change in Entergy's plans - the taxpayers of Massachusetts may very well be footing at least part of the bill for decommissioning. In addition to the purely financial concerns, there are concerns about the safety of the process since it involves highly radioactive spent fuel rods which must be moved AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
to dry cask storage. This process must be done with the highest level of security, safety & attention to detail.
There are also issues about the future of the PNPS site which must be available to be utilized in the most
constructive way possible, taking into account the surrounding area, its residents, businesses, etc. The immediate area - the town of Plymouth - is of the greatest concern. Residents need to be informed every step
along the way of what will transpire as well as reassured that their safety & health are not at risk given that Page 1of 2 03/17/201 6 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ec60a6&format=xml&showorig=fals e
the process involves highly radioactive materials. As an aside, the operation of the PNPS has already resulted in contamination of surrounding waterways and has adversely affected local habitats of fish & other marine
species.My greatest concern in dealing with large organizations - Entergy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, etc. - is that their operations often leave ordinary citizens (like
myself) in the lurch - uninformed, uneducated and uninvolved in decision-making with the potential for
adversely affecting their quality of life. I implore you who are responsible for the safe decommissioning of
PNPS & the follow-up necessary to ensure that all goes as well as possible without jeopardizing ANYONE
really keep us - the citizens of Massachusetts, residents of Plymouth, Cape Cod & Southeastern
Massachusetts in particular - fully informed and involved. I listened to Kate O'Connor's testimony today and I hope that the model of a citizens' advisory panel that she's been part of will also be available in the
Commonwealth.I thank you for your attention to my concerns. I hope the follow up to today's hearing will yield results that support the citizens of the Commonwealth to fully trust and participate in the process of decommissioning to
the highest extent possible.Page 2of 2 03/17/201 6 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ec60a6&format=xml&showorig=fals e
1 Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:41 PM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource
Subject:
Comment on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for
Decommissioning Attachments:
NRC-2015-0070-DRAFT-0069.pdf DOCKETED BY USNRC-OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 FRN#: 80FR72358 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2015-0070 SECY DOCKET DATE: 3/17/16 TITLE: Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors COMMENT#: 075
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 3/17/16 3:42 PM Received:
March 15, 2016 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.
1k0-8oim-m1ht Comments Due:
March 18, 2016 Submission Type:
Web Docket: NRC-2015-0070Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning Comment On:
NRC-2015-0070-0007Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors; Extension of Comment Period Document:
NRC-2015-0070-DRAFT-0069 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-32599 Submitter Information Name: Rosanne Shapiro Address: 339 Leighton's Lane
Harwich, MA, 02645Email: lunaseacreations@verizon.net General Comment I live on Cape Cod, downwind of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) in Plymouth. PNPS is scheduled to close no later than 2019. It is the exact same model as the Fukishima Plant that had a significant meltdown
in 2011. There have been numerous incidents - fortunately none as serious as Fukishima - that have led many citizens groups to call for closure long before its parent corporation, Entergy, made the decision referred to
above, and the decision was economically/financially based - consideration was not given to those of us who live in an area that would be uninhabitable should there be an accident, not to mention the extreme health &
safety risks such an event would create.
Now, we are facing a different set of challenges with regard to the decommissioning process. These challenges are (in part) financial in terms of the cost of decommissioning. We have been told that the funds
set aside by Entergy for this process are inadequate. This means that - unless there is a radical change in Entergy's plans - the taxpayers of Massachusetts may very well be footing at least part of the bill for decommissioning. In addition to the purely financial concerns, there are concerns about the safety of the process since it involves highly radioactive spent fuel rods which must be moved AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
to dry cask storage. This process must be done with the highest level of security, safety & attention to detail.
There are also issues about the future of the PNPS site which must be available to be utilized in the most
constructive way possible, taking into account the surrounding area, its residents, businesses, etc. The immediate area - the town of Plymouth - is of the greatest concern. Residents need to be informed every step
along the way of what will transpire as well as reassured that their safety & health are not at risk given that Page 1of 2 03/17/201 6 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ec60a6&format=xml&showorig=fals e
the process involves highly radioactive materials. As an aside, the operation of the PNPS has already resulted in contamination of surrounding waterways and has adversely affected local habitats of fish & other marine
species.My greatest concern in dealing with large organizations - Entergy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, etc. - is that their operations often leave ordinary citizens (like
myself) in the lurch - uninformed, uneducated and uninvolved in decision-making with the potential for
adversely affecting their quality of life. I implore you who are responsible for the safe decommissioning of
PNPS & the follow-up necessary to ensure that all goes as well as possible without jeopardizing ANYONE
really keep us - the citizens of Massachusetts, residents of Plymouth, Cape Cod & Southeastern
Massachusetts in particular - fully informed and involved. I listened to Kate O'Connor's testimony today and I hope that the model of a citizens' advisory panel that she's been part of will also be available in the
Commonwealth.I thank you for your attention to my concerns. I hope the follow up to today's hearing will yield results that support the citizens of the Commonwealth to fully trust and participate in the process of decommissioning to
the highest extent possible.Page 2of 2 03/17/201 6 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ec60a6&format=xml&showorig=fals e