ML15287A430

Comment (67) of Emilie Inman Opposing Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal

ML15287A430
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
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)

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}}