ML040540766: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:From: | {{#Wiki_filter:From: | ||
Date: | gilbert woolley <gilbertwoolley~juno.com> | ||
G G | |||
To: | |||
<GrandGulfEIS~nrc.gov> | |||
Date: | |||
Sun, Feb 8, 2004 3:13 PM | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Proposed Nuclear Power Plant 9 Whittlesey Road Newton. MA 02459 February 8. 2004 | Proposed Nuclear Power Plant 9 Whittlesey Road Newton. MA 02459 February 8. 2004 | ||
Chief, Rules and Directives Branch | §3) | ||
Chief, Rules and Directives Branch o | |||
-a-Division of Administrative Services AIf J | |||
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Early Site Permit for new nuclear reactor at Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant, Port Gibson, Miss. | |||
==Dear Sir\\Madam,== | |||
I am writing to remind you of the experience in Massachusetts when one of our two nuclear plants was closed down some years ago. It has become, to all intents and purposes, a nuclear waste dump. Despite decades of effort by the federal government there is still no approved site to store spent radio active fuel rods and reactor parts, which will be radio active for hundreds of years. You know that the state of New Mexico is still fighting a partially completed underground storage facility and the state may well succeed. The fact is that even the most pro-nuclear power proponents want a nuclear waste facility in their neighborhood Surely, the licensing of new nuclear facilities should be held back until there is available a secure site for spent fuel rods. | I am writing to remind you of the experience in Massachusetts when one of our two nuclear plants was closed down some years ago. It has become, to all intents and purposes, a nuclear waste dump. Despite decades of effort by the federal government there is still no approved site to store spent radio active fuel rods and reactor parts, which will be radio active for hundreds of years. You know that the state of New Mexico is still fighting a partially completed underground storage facility and the state may well succeed. The fact is that even the most pro-nuclear power proponents want a nuclear waste facility in their neighborhood Surely, the licensing of new nuclear facilities should be held back until there is available a secure site for spent fuel rods. | ||
A site specific reason to not issue a permit is that the facility is located on the Mississippi River in an area prone to damage from hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding. An accident or act of sabotage at this facility and its growing inventory of nuclear waste would contaminate the Mississippi River, New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever benefits the reactor is claimed to provide, it is just not worth the risk to the people who live downstream and the seafood industry. | A site specific reason to not issue a permit is that the facility is located on the Mississippi River in an area prone to damage from hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding. An accident or act of sabotage at this facility and its growing inventory of nuclear waste would contaminate the Mississippi River, New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever benefits the reactor is claimed to provide, it is just not worth the risk to the people who live downstream and the seafood industry. | ||
Gilbert K. Woolley s44--,05?, | Gilbert K. Woolley s44--,05?, | ||
an C./ | an C./}} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:50, 16 January 2025
| ML040540766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/2004 |
| From: | Woolloy G - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 68FR75656 00006 | |
| Download: ML040540766 (1) | |
Text
From:
gilbert woolley <gilbertwoolley~juno.com>
G G
To:
<GrandGulfEIS~nrc.gov>
Date:
Sun, Feb 8, 2004 3:13 PM
Subject:
Proposed Nuclear Power Plant 9 Whittlesey Road Newton. MA 02459 February 8. 2004
§3)
Chief, Rules and Directives Branch o
-a-Division of Administrative Services AIf J
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: Early Site Permit for new nuclear reactor at Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant, Port Gibson, Miss.
Dear Sir\\Madam,
I am writing to remind you of the experience in Massachusetts when one of our two nuclear plants was closed down some years ago. It has become, to all intents and purposes, a nuclear waste dump. Despite decades of effort by the federal government there is still no approved site to store spent radio active fuel rods and reactor parts, which will be radio active for hundreds of years. You know that the state of New Mexico is still fighting a partially completed underground storage facility and the state may well succeed. The fact is that even the most pro-nuclear power proponents want a nuclear waste facility in their neighborhood Surely, the licensing of new nuclear facilities should be held back until there is available a secure site for spent fuel rods.
A site specific reason to not issue a permit is that the facility is located on the Mississippi River in an area prone to damage from hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding. An accident or act of sabotage at this facility and its growing inventory of nuclear waste would contaminate the Mississippi River, New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. Whatever benefits the reactor is claimed to provide, it is just not worth the risk to the people who live downstream and the seafood industry.
Gilbert K. Woolley s44--,05?,
an C./