ML24198A183: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 7/16/24, 1:42 PM Received: July 14, 2024 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lym-bbyq-dvoj Comments Due: July 29, 2024 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2024-0076 Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Comment On: NRC-2024-0076-0001 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment Document: NRC-2024-0076-DRAFT-0016 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-14112 Submitter Information Name: Robert Brown Address: | ||
Whitehall, MI, 49461 Email:michillinda@hotmail.com Phone:2319039662 General Comment It can be done, but is it a wise choice to use 1.5 billion (and likely more) tax payer dollars? I believe that, in the long run, the environmental costs and risks will outweigh the benefits, whereas the same tax dollar investment in recyclable decentralized wind and solar energy generation would be a wiser and more sustainable choice. Palisades has already generated legacy waste responsibilities that are forced upon future generations. In addition, as minor as it may seem, Lake Michigan is unethically used as a free heat sink landfill. Also, regardless of the location within the Michigan Basin, the plant is situated on a Fukushima-like setting, vulnerable to within striking distance of the New Madrid Seismic Zone with potential tsunami forces. Such a risk cannot be definitively known, is not zero, and therefore is significant. These are scenarios that, even if considered under planned engineered precautions, make this endeavor an unwise choice. Its not worth the potential risks at the expense of decentralized energy projects that can benefit all citizens. As with many political expenditure projects in this country, the reopening of Palisades would be putting a short-sighted corporate control and profits of energy generation in the hands of few, rather than for the control by the multitude of citizens that that kind of investment could benefit. It would be a long term poor investment decision, regardless of the legacy waste generation and potential catastrophic environmental radiation hazards that are unique to nuclear power. Corporations excel at making well meaning promises for the up front public money to go into their pockets, and I see this as another unwise, long term, public investment. | |||
7/16/24, 1:50 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/65519a6f-5252-43f3-ae71-557bda121281 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/65519a6f-5252-43f3-ae71-557bda121281 1/1 SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Laura Willingham, Mary Richmond, Antoinette Walker-Smit, Jessica Hammock, Marlayna Doell, Mary Neely Comment (16) | |||
Publication Date:6/27/2024 Citation: 89 FR 53659}} | |||
Comment On: NRC-2024-0076-0001 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment | |||
Document: NRC-2024-0076-DRAFT-0016 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-14112 | |||
Submitter Information | |||
Name: Robert Brown Address: | |||
Whitehall, | |||
General Comment | |||
It can be done, but is it a wise choice to use 1.5 billion (and likely more) tax payer dollars? I believe that, in the long run, the environmental costs and risks will outweigh the benefits, whereas the same tax dollar investment in recyclable decentralized wind and solar energy generation would be a wiser and more sustainable choice. Palisades has already generated legacy waste responsibilities that are forced upon future generations. In addition, as minor as it may seem, Lake Michigan is unethically used as a free heat sink landfill. Also, regardless of the location within the Michigan Basin, the plant is situated on a Fukushima-like setting, vulnerable to within striking distance of the New Madrid Seismic Zone with potential tsunami forces. Such a risk cannot be definitively known, is not zero, and therefore is significant. These are scenarios that, even if considered under planned engineered precautions, make this endeavor an unwise choice. Its not worth the potential risks at the expense of decentralized energy projects that can benefit all citizens. As with many political expenditure projects in this country, the reopening of Palisades would be putting a short-sighted corporate control and profits of | |||
blob:https://www.fdms.gov/65519a6f-5252-43f3-ae71-557bda121281 | |||
Latest revision as of 17:29, 24 November 2024
| ML24198A183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/2024 |
| From: | Brown R - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 89FR53659 00016, NRC-2024-0076 | |
| Download: ML24198A183 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 7/16/24, 1:42 PM Received: July 14, 2024 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lym-bbyq-dvoj Comments Due: July 29, 2024 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2024-0076 Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Comment On: NRC-2024-0076-0001 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment Document: NRC-2024-0076-DRAFT-0016 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-14112 Submitter Information Name: Robert Brown Address:
Whitehall, MI, 49461 Email:michillinda@hotmail.com Phone:2319039662 General Comment It can be done, but is it a wise choice to use 1.5 billion (and likely more) tax payer dollars? I believe that, in the long run, the environmental costs and risks will outweigh the benefits, whereas the same tax dollar investment in recyclable decentralized wind and solar energy generation would be a wiser and more sustainable choice. Palisades has already generated legacy waste responsibilities that are forced upon future generations. In addition, as minor as it may seem, Lake Michigan is unethically used as a free heat sink landfill. Also, regardless of the location within the Michigan Basin, the plant is situated on a Fukushima-like setting, vulnerable to within striking distance of the New Madrid Seismic Zone with potential tsunami forces. Such a risk cannot be definitively known, is not zero, and therefore is significant. These are scenarios that, even if considered under planned engineered precautions, make this endeavor an unwise choice. Its not worth the potential risks at the expense of decentralized energy projects that can benefit all citizens. As with many political expenditure projects in this country, the reopening of Palisades would be putting a short-sighted corporate control and profits of energy generation in the hands of few, rather than for the control by the multitude of citizens that that kind of investment could benefit. It would be a long term poor investment decision, regardless of the legacy waste generation and potential catastrophic environmental radiation hazards that are unique to nuclear power. Corporations excel at making well meaning promises for the up front public money to go into their pockets, and I see this as another unwise, long term, public investment.
7/16/24, 1:50 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/65519a6f-5252-43f3-ae71-557bda121281 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/65519a6f-5252-43f3-ae71-557bda121281 1/1 SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Laura Willingham, Mary Richmond, Antoinette Walker-Smit, Jessica Hammock, Marlayna Doell, Mary Neely Comment (16)
Publication Date:6/27/2024 Citation: 89 FR 53659