ML060480400: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML060480400
| number = ML060480400
| issue date = 02/06/2006
| issue date = 02/06/2006
| title = 2006/02/06-Comment (46) of Victor and Mary Burdo Opposing Entergy'S Push to Uprate Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant for a 20% Increase in the Production of Electrical Power
| title = Comment (46) of Victor and Mary Burdo Opposing Entergy'S Push to Uprate Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant for a 20% Increase in the Production of Electrical Power
| author name = Burdo M, Burdo V
| author name = Burdo M, Burdo V
| author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation
| author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Victor and Mary Burdo l 9 5'496 Rice Farm Road Dummerston, VT 05301 7//-%t /774/February 6, 2006 V Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001  
{{#Wiki_filter:Victor and Mary Burdo                                             l 9 5' 496 Rice Farm Road Dummerston, VT 05301 7//-%t /774/
February 6, 2006                                               V Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001


==Dear Chief,==
==Dear Chief,==
Citing: page 1774 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2006.Because of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant's age and because an Independent Safety Assessment has not been made, we strongly believe that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant should not be given an uprate in power production and that it should not continue to operate beyond its original closing date. We live within fallout area of the plant.Respectfully, Victor nd Mary Burdo<A I N S 5~~~~~ '~5 ^9~~6 / ..'. ' .,, :. .}}
 
Citing: page 1774 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2006.
Because of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant's age and because an Independent Safety Assessment has not been made, we strongly believe that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant should not be given an uprate in power production and that it should not continue to operate beyond its original closing date. We live within fallout area of the plant.
Respectfully, Victor nd Mary Burdo
        <A I N                           S 5~~~~~           / '~5
                    ^9~~6
                                  .'.' .     ,, :.     .}}

Latest revision as of 09:53, 14 March 2020

Comment (46) of Victor and Mary Burdo Opposing Entergy'S Push to Uprate Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant for a 20% Increase in the Production of Electrical Power
ML060480400
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/06/2006
From: Burdo M, Burdo V
- No Known Affiliation
To:
NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB
References
%dam200606, 71FR1774 00046
Download: ML060480400 (1)


Text

Victor and Mary Burdo l 9 5' 496 Rice Farm Road Dummerston, VT 05301 7//-%t /774/

February 6, 2006 V Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001

Dear Chief,

Citing: page 1774 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2006.

Because of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant's age and because an Independent Safety Assessment has not been made, we strongly believe that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant should not be given an uprate in power production and that it should not continue to operate beyond its original closing date. We live within fallout area of the plant.

Respectfully, Victor nd Mary Burdo

<A I N S 5~~~~~ / '~5

^9~~6

.'.' . ,, :. .