ML15287A430: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:9/1/20159//215N RC- 2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.htmiAs of:" 9/1/15 4:52 PMReceived- AuQW4t27 2015PUBLIC SUBM ISSION .......Status: Tracking No. ljz-8ks9-85vhComments Due: August 31i, 201 5Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2009-0552Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear PowerPlant LicenseComment On: NRC-2009-0552-0026Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental ImpactStatementDocument: NRC-2009-0552-DRAFT-0060 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-15921 ,@ F' &p-{Submter Informtion- -!V..Name: Emilie Inman --i-VrC l2 )General CommentRelicensing the diablo canyon plant is not only an incredibly harmful proposition it also seemsfairly oblivious to the multitude of high risk scenarios this relicensing would permit to continue. Iam firmly against it. Not only is this power plant on the shore, its coolin pipes killing andestimated 2.5 billions fish babies per year, and any nuclear disaster threatening to spread its toxicwaste into the pacific and across the globe, it also rests on 13 active fault lines. The location alonethreatens an incredibly widespread area of our beloved planet. This does not include the issue oftoxic waste and it's disposal, creating opportunities for toxins to enter not only the soil and groundwater but in turn our food. In addition to these high risk and incredibly detrimental opportunitiesthis plant provides, CA has a 40% energy surplus without nuclear energy. WE DO NOT NEEDTHIS ENERGY OR ITS POLLUTING RISKS.To care for our planet and ourselves it is imperative that Diablo canyon nuclear power plant NOTbe relicensed.SUNSI Review CompleteTemplate "- ADM -013E-RIDS= ADM-03Add= file:llC :/U sers/CAG/D ownl oads/N R C-2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.html1/1/1 9/1/20159//215N RC- 2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.htmiAs of:" 9/1/15 4:52 PMReceived- AuQW4t27 2015PUBLIC SUBM ISSION .......Status: Tracking No. ljz-8ks9-85vhComments Due: August 31i, 201 5Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2009-0552Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear PowerPlant LicenseComment On: NRC-2009-0552-0026Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental ImpactStatementDocument: NRC-2009-0552-DRAFT-0060 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-15921 ,@ F' &p-{Submter Informtion- -!V..Name: Emilie Inman --i-VrC l2 )General CommentRelicensing the diablo canyon plant is not only an incredibly harmful proposition it also seemsfairly oblivious to the multitude of high risk scenarios this relicensing would permit to continue. Iam firmly against it. Not only is this power plant on the shore, its coolin pipes killing andestimated 2.5 billions fish babies per year, and any nuclear disaster threatening to spread its toxicwaste into the pacific and across the globe, it also rests on 13 active fault lines. The location alonethreatens an incredibly widespread area of our beloved planet. This does not include the issue oftoxic waste and it's disposal, creating opportunities for toxins to enter not only the soil and groundwater but in turn our food. In addition to these high risk and incredibly detrimental opportunitiesthis plant provides, CA has a 40% energy surplus without nuclear energy. WE DO NOT NEEDTHIS ENERGY OR ITS POLLUTING RISKS.To care for our planet and ourselves it is imperative that Diablo canyon nuclear power plant NOTbe relicensed.SUNSI Review CompleteTemplate "- ADM -013E-RIDS= ADM-03Add= file:llC :/U sers/CAG/D ownl oads/N R C-2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.html1/1/1}}
{{#Wiki_filter:9/1/2015 9//215N RC- 2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.htmi As of:" 9/1/15 4:52 PM Received-AuQW4t27 2015 PUBLIC SUBM ISSION .......Status:
Tracking No. ljz-8ks9-85vh Comments Due: August 31i, 201 5 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2009-0552 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License Comment On: NRC-2009-0552-0026 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Document:
NRC-2009-0552-DRAFT-0060 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-15921  
,@ F' &p-{Submter Informtion-  
-!V..Name: Emilie Inman --i-Vr C l2 )General Comment Relicensing the diablo canyon plant is not only an incredibly harmful proposition it also seems fairly oblivious to the multitude of high risk scenarios this relicensing would permit to continue.
I am firmly against it. Not only is this power plant on the shore, its coolin pipes killing and estimated
 
===2.5 billions===
fish babies per year, and any nuclear disaster threatening to spread its toxic waste into the pacific and across the globe, it also rests on 13 active fault lines. The location alone threatens an incredibly widespread area of our beloved planet. This does not include the issue of toxic waste and it's disposal, creating opportunities for toxins to enter not only the soil and ground water but in turn our food. In addition to these high risk and incredibly detrimental opportunities this plant provides, CA has a 40% energy surplus without nuclear energy. WE DO NOT NEED THIS ENERGY OR ITS POLLUTING RISKS.To care for our planet and ourselves it is imperative that Diablo canyon nuclear power plant NOT be relicensed.
SUNSI Review Complete Template "- ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= file:llC :/U sers/CAG/D ownl oads/N R C-2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.html1/
1/1 9/1/2015 9//215N RC- 2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.htmi As of:" 9/1/15 4:52 PM Received-AuQW4t27 2015 PUBLIC SUBM ISSION .......Status:
Tracking No. ljz-8ks9-85vh Comments Due: August 31i, 201 5 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2009-0552 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License Comment On: NRC-2009-0552-0026 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Document:
NRC-2009-0552-DRAFT-0060 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-15921  
,@ F' &p-{Submter Informtion-  
-!V..Name: Emilie Inman --i-Vr C l2 )General Comment Relicensing the diablo canyon plant is not only an incredibly harmful proposition it also seems fairly oblivious to the multitude of high risk scenarios this relicensing would permit to continue.
I am firmly against it. Not only is this power plant on the shore, its coolin pipes killing and estimated
 
===2.5 billions===
fish babies per year, and any nuclear disaster threatening to spread its toxic waste into the pacific and across the globe, it also rests on 13 active fault lines. The location alone threatens an incredibly widespread area of our beloved planet. This does not include the issue of toxic waste and it's disposal, creating opportunities for toxins to enter not only the soil and ground water but in turn our food. In addition to these high risk and incredibly detrimental opportunities this plant provides, CA has a 40% energy surplus without nuclear energy. WE DO NOT NEED THIS ENERGY OR ITS POLLUTING RISKS.To care for our planet and ourselves it is imperative that Diablo canyon nuclear power plant NOT be relicensed.
SUNSI Review Complete Template "- ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= file:llC :/U sers/CAG/D ownl oads/N R C-2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.html1/
1/1}}

Latest revision as of 05:31, 10 October 2018

Comment (67) of Emilie Inman Opposing Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal
ML15287A430
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 08/27/2015
From: Inman E
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
80FR37664 00067, NRC-2009-0552
Download: ML15287A430 (1)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:9/1/2015 9//215N RC- 2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.htmi As of:" 9/1/15 4:52 PM Received-AuQW4t27 2015 PUBLIC SUBM ISSION .......Status: Tracking No. ljz-8ks9-85vh Comments Due: August 31i, 201 5 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2009-0552 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License Comment On: NRC-2009-0552-0026 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2009-0552-DRAFT-0060 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-15921 ,@ F' &p-{Submter Informtion- -!V..Name: Emilie Inman --i-Vr C l2 )General Comment Relicensing the diablo canyon plant is not only an incredibly harmful proposition it also seems fairly oblivious to the multitude of high risk scenarios this relicensing would permit to continue. I am firmly against it. Not only is this power plant on the shore, its coolin pipes killing and estimated

2.5 billions

fish babies per year, and any nuclear disaster threatening to spread its toxic waste into the pacific and across the globe, it also rests on 13 active fault lines. The location alone threatens an incredibly widespread area of our beloved planet. This does not include the issue of toxic waste and it's disposal, creating opportunities for toxins to enter not only the soil and ground water but in turn our food. In addition to these high risk and incredibly detrimental opportunities this plant provides, CA has a 40% energy surplus without nuclear energy. WE DO NOT NEED THIS ENERGY OR ITS POLLUTING RISKS.To care for our planet and ourselves it is imperative that Diablo canyon nuclear power plant NOT be relicensed. SUNSI Review Complete Template "- ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= file:llC :/U sers/CAG/D ownl oads/N R C-2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.html1/ 1/1 9/1/2015 9//215N RC- 2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.htmi As of:" 9/1/15 4:52 PM Received-AuQW4t27 2015 PUBLIC SUBM ISSION .......Status: Tracking No. ljz-8ks9-85vh Comments Due: August 31i, 201 5 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2009-0552 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License Comment On: NRC-2009-0552-0026 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2009-0552-DRAFT-0060 Comment on FR Doc # 2015-15921 ,@ F' &p-{Submter Informtion- -!V..Name: Emilie Inman --i-Vr C l2 )General Comment Relicensing the diablo canyon plant is not only an incredibly harmful proposition it also seems fairly oblivious to the multitude of high risk scenarios this relicensing would permit to continue. I am firmly against it. Not only is this power plant on the shore, its coolin pipes killing and estimated

2.5 billions

fish babies per year, and any nuclear disaster threatening to spread its toxic waste into the pacific and across the globe, it also rests on 13 active fault lines. The location alone threatens an incredibly widespread area of our beloved planet. This does not include the issue of toxic waste and it's disposal, creating opportunities for toxins to enter not only the soil and ground water but in turn our food. In addition to these high risk and incredibly detrimental opportunities this plant provides, CA has a 40% energy surplus without nuclear energy. WE DO NOT NEED THIS ENERGY OR ITS POLLUTING RISKS.To care for our planet and ourselves it is imperative that Diablo canyon nuclear power plant NOT be relicensed. SUNSI Review Complete Template "- ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= file:llC :/U sers/CAG/D ownl oads/N R C-2009- 0552- DRAFT- 0060.html1/ 1/1}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15287A430&oldid=1086805"