|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | author name = Baly A | | | author name = Baly A |
| | author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation | | | author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation |
| | addressee name = Regner L M | | | addressee name = Regner L |
| | addressee affiliation = NRC/ADM/DAS/RDEB | | | addressee affiliation = NRC/ADM/DAS/RDEB |
| | docket = 05000352, 05000353 | | | docket = 05000352, 05000353 |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| | page count = 1 | | | page count = 1 |
| }} | | }} |
| | |
| | =Text= |
| | {{#Wiki_filter:Mendiola, Doris _ |
| | From: Anita Baly [ajbaly@yahoo.com] |
| | Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:06 PM To: Regner, Lisa Y |
| | |
| | ==Subject:== |
| | Limerick Plant Relicensing Application is Too Early 1 Wn |
| | |
| | ==Dear Lisa,== |
| | |
| | It was good to meet you at the September 22, 2011 hearing the NRC held at Sunnybrook. |
| | As I stated then, I continue to be concerned and puzzled about the very early and pre-mature application of Exelon to extend the licenses of the towers. One of those towers does not come up for renewal until 2024 and the other 2029. I ask the NRC not to work on the relicensing question for this facility for at least ten years. The wait could only ensure better information. The public cannot possibly benefit from a decision to renew the licenses at this time. The best decision will be made based on the best possible information. The NRC does not have that best information this early. Much will happen in the next ten years. I urge the NRC to wait and see how any of it affects the prospect of continuing these plants at that later date. |
| | What can happen in the next ten years that we can all learn from relevantly could be anything. It may be better information about how natural disasters are affecting nuclear facilities; we may know more about weather patterns that could cause damage. We will certainly know more about the world situation in terms of advances in terrorist technological capabilities and goals. We will know more about how well nuclear plants in general and the Limerick facility are faring as they continue to age. If someone steps forward to fund studies, we will know yet more about cancer rates in the nuclear zone. (We do know something about that now: Joseph Mangano and others have done studies already that I assume he has provided to you, and I urge you to consider carefully.) |
| | One big concern--because of Japan's recent experience and the fact that we had an earthquake here in the Limerick plant's territory--is refurbishing the plants so they can withstand earthquakes. It has been widely reported--by MSNBC and the AP, using NRC data--that the Limerick plant has the nation's third highest risk of being damaged by an earthquake. When the plant was built, no one thought this area would get earthquakes. |
| | Now we do. I understand that Congress is now or soon will be considering increasing earthquake preparedness capabilities at the plants. I fear that if you grant Exelon carte blanche now, the NRC would encourage them to do less than they should to make the plants safer. |
| | There can be no good reasons for relicensing now. Please wait as long as possible to do that. Better information helps everyone who wants an outcome that is right and socially beneficial--not just profitable for Exelon. |
| | Thank you for your consideration. |
| | Anita Baly 6& i2..Z )y-17}} |
Latest revision as of 13:40, 12 November 2019
|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML15124A0232015-04-20020 April 2015
Comment (1) of Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of Alliance for Clean Environment on Draft Guidance Regarding the Alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule - Docket Id NRC-2014-0137
ML13190A3072013-07-0303 July 2013
Comment (11) of Charlie and Betty Shank Opposing Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2
ML13190A3082013-06-27027 June 2013
Comment (12) of Tina Daly Opposing Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2
ML13190A0052013-06-27027 June 2013
Comment (9) of Lindy Nelson on Behalf of Us Department of the Interior, on License Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Supplement 49
ML13182A0112013-06-26026 June 2013
Comment (8) of Charlie and Betty Shank Requesting That NRC to Reconsider Environmental Impacts of Its Decision to Re-License Limerick Units 1 & 2
ML13182A0102013-06-25025 June 2013
Comment (7) of E. Christopher Abruzzo on Behalf of State of PA, Dept of Environmental Protection on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2
ML13182A0402013-06-24024 June 2013
Comment (6) by Lewis Cuthbert, on Behalf of ACE, on Limerick Nuclear Plant'S Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ML13172A0482013-06-20020 June 2013
Comment (5) of Janice Monger Opposed to Renewing Limerick Nuclear Plant'S License
ML13170A3132013-06-14014 June 2013
Comment (4) of Kelly Jameson Opposing Limerick Nuclear Plant Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ML13157A2612013-05-23023 May 2013
Comment (3) of Les Rinehart of Potty Queen Supporting the Relicensing of the Limerick Generating Station
ML13141A1522013-05-16016 May 2013
Comment (2) of Marvin Lewis Opposing Application for Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License
ML13141A1512013-05-16016 May 2013
Comment (1) of Marvin Lewis Opposing Exelon Generation Company, LLC, License Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License
ML13022A4962012-12-13013 December 2012
Comment (248) of Deb Brown on Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
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
ML12334A3872012-11-21021 November 2012
Comment (91) of Kenneth Clark on Consideration on Environmental Impacts on Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML11307A4542011-11-0202 November 2011
Comment (39) of Michael Smokowicz, on Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant
ML11307A3882011-11-0101 November 2011
Comment (33) of Charlotte Derr, Opposing Limerick License Renewal - NRC 2011-0166
ML11307A4552011-10-31031 October 2011
Comment (38) of Sharon Yohn Opposing License Renewal of Limerick Power Plant
ML11307A4562011-10-28028 October 2011
Comment (36) of Jordan Weaver, Et. Al., on Behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council, on Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2
ML11305A0102011-10-28028 October 2011
Comment (32) of Anita Baly, on Behalf of Herself, Opposed to Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant
ML11308B3522011-10-28028 October 2011
Comment (37) of Lorraine Ruppe Opposing the Reissuing of a License to Run the Limerick Nuclear Plant
ML11305A0092011-10-28028 October 2011
Comment (31) of John and Joyce B. Webber, on Behalf of Selfs, Opposed to Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant
ML11305A0082011-10-27027 October 2011
Comment (30) of Charlie Koenig Opposing the Limerick Licensing
ML11305A0072011-10-27027 October 2011
Comment (29) of Debby Penrod, Supporting Limerick License Renewal
ML11305A0152011-10-27027 October 2011
Comment (25) of Ken Sekellick Opposing an Extension of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Operating License
ML11305A0142011-10-27027 October 2011
Comment (24) of Doris Meyers, on Behalf of Self, Opposing Limerick Relicensing
ML11306A2442011-10-26026 October 2011
Comment (27) of Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of the Alliance for a Clean Environment, Opposing Limerick License Renewal. Part 1 of 2
ML11306A2452011-10-26026 October 2011
Comment (27) of Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of the Alliance for a Clean Environment, Opposing Limerick License Renewal. Part 2 of 2
ML11307A3872011-10-25025 October 2011
Comment (34) of Michael M. Stokes, on Behalf of Montgomery County, PA Planning Commission, on Limerick Nuclear Generating Station License Renewal, NRC-2011-0166
ML11307A3862011-10-25025 October 2011
Comment (35) of Thomas M. Sullivan, on Behalf of Montgomery County Dept of Public Safety, on Environmental Scoping, Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, Division of License Renewal, NRC-2011-0166
ML11300A0112011-10-23023 October 2011
Comment (21) of Lisa Smoyer, Opposing Limerick License Renewal - NRC Id Docket 2011-0166
ML11301A0722011-10-21021 October 2011
Comment (23) of Lori Molinari, Opposing Limerick Relicensure
ML11294A2082011-10-19019 October 2011
Comment (20) of Mary Lou & Herald Smith Opposing License Renewal at Limerick
ML11305A0062011-10-15015 October 2011
Comment (28) of Anthony Gonyea, on Behalf of the Onondaga Nation, on Limerick Generating Station License Renewal
ML11291A1552011-10-14014 October 2011
Comment (17) of Melissa Antrim on Behalf of Self Opposing Limerick License Renewal
ML11291A1562011-10-14014 October 2011
Comment (18) of Michael Antrim on Behalf of Self Opposing the Renewal of Limerick Operating License
ML11290A1052011-10-13013 October 2011
Comment (15) of Michael Gale Opposing Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Plant
ML11290A1042011-10-13013 October 2011
Comment (14) of Jude Schwegel Opposing Limerick License Renewal
ML11290A1032011-10-12012 October 2011
Comment (13) of Cynthia Gale Opposing Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant
ML11290A1022011-10-12012 October 2011
Comment (12) of Nancy Leaming Opposing the Renewal of Limerick Plant License
ML11286A2982011-10-11011 October 2011
Comment (9) of Unknown Individual Re Limerick Generating Station License Renewal
ML11300A0122011-10-0808 October 2011
Comment (22) of Unknown Individual Opposing Limerick Nuclear Plant'S License Renewal
ML11279A1142011-09-28028 September 2011
Comment (8) of Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Review on Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, License Application Renewal
ML11279A1112011-09-28028 September 2011
Comment (5) of Sylvia Pollick Opposing Exelon Energy'S License Renewal
ML11290A1062011-09-26026 September 2011
Comment (16) of Joe Roberto, on Behalf of Self, Opposing Relicensing of Limerick
ML11279A1072011-09-26026 September 2011
Comment (1) of Camilla Lange Serious Reservations and Concerns on Limerick Generating Station License Renewal
ML11286A3002011-09-24024 September 2011
Comment (11) by Charles & Elizabeth Shank Opposing License Renewal of Limerick Generating Station
ML11279A1132011-09-23023 September 2011
Comment (7) of Brice Obermeyer on Behalf of Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Office Concerning the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, License Renewal Application Review
ML11279A1102011-09-22022 September 2011
Comment (4) of Charlene Padworny Opposing an Extension of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Operating License
ML11286A2992011-09-22022 September 2011
Comment (10) by Richard Kolsch on Limerick Power Plant License Renewal
2015-04-20
[Table view] |
Text
Mendiola, Doris _
From: Anita Baly [ajbaly@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:06 PM To: Regner, Lisa Y
Subject:
Limerick Plant Relicensing Application is Too Early 1 Wn
Dear Lisa,
It was good to meet you at the September 22, 2011 hearing the NRC held at Sunnybrook.
As I stated then, I continue to be concerned and puzzled about the very early and pre-mature application of Exelon to extend the licenses of the towers. One of those towers does not come up for renewal until 2024 and the other 2029. I ask the NRC not to work on the relicensing question for this facility for at least ten years. The wait could only ensure better information. The public cannot possibly benefit from a decision to renew the licenses at this time. The best decision will be made based on the best possible information. The NRC does not have that best information this early. Much will happen in the next ten years. I urge the NRC to wait and see how any of it affects the prospect of continuing these plants at that later date.
What can happen in the next ten years that we can all learn from relevantly could be anything. It may be better information about how natural disasters are affecting nuclear facilities; we may know more about weather patterns that could cause damage. We will certainly know more about the world situation in terms of advances in terrorist technological capabilities and goals. We will know more about how well nuclear plants in general and the Limerick facility are faring as they continue to age. If someone steps forward to fund studies, we will know yet more about cancer rates in the nuclear zone. (We do know something about that now: Joseph Mangano and others have done studies already that I assume he has provided to you, and I urge you to consider carefully.)
One big concern--because of Japan's recent experience and the fact that we had an earthquake here in the Limerick plant's territory--is refurbishing the plants so they can withstand earthquakes. It has been widely reported--by MSNBC and the AP, using NRC data--that the Limerick plant has the nation's third highest risk of being damaged by an earthquake. When the plant was built, no one thought this area would get earthquakes.
Now we do. I understand that Congress is now or soon will be considering increasing earthquake preparedness capabilities at the plants. I fear that if you grant Exelon carte blanche now, the NRC would encourage them to do less than they should to make the plants safer.
There can be no good reasons for relicensing now. Please wait as long as possible to do that. Better information helps everyone who wants an outcome that is right and socially beneficial--not just profitable for Exelon.
Thank you for your consideration.
Anita Baly 6& i2..Z )y-17
