ML18150A638: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:PUBLIC SUBMISSIONAs of: 5/30/18 1:32 PMReceived: May 29, 2018Status: Pending_PostTracking No. 1k2-93f2-tpv6Comments Due: June 05, 2018 Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: NRC-2018-0017-0003Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear FuelDocument: NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0027Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776Submitter InformationName: janet azarovitzAddress: west falmouth,  MA,  02574Email: jazarovitz@comcast.netSubmitter's Representative: janet azarovitzOrganization: Pilgrim Legislative Advisory CoaltionGeneral CommentI am in agreement with the Citizens Oversight Inc. on this rule. Time is running out. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is going to close in a year but decommissioning plans are in consideration. Entergy responded to current consideration of lifting requirements days after the considerations were made public. The NRC MUST consider the safety of the public more seriously than it does presently, cow towing to the industry, literally the lapdog protector of the industry. The 14 contentions that are being brought forward would ensure safety and long-term planning, moving forward. The 1,000 year design and time-aging analysis to keep the hazardous material housed appropriately makes total sense. Nclear waste is one of those most toxic waste products known to man and must be guarded for practically eons. The proposed revisions are an absolute necessity. The red tape that the NRC has proposed to be eliminated demands that we need as much oversight as possible. We must refocus on the future, our future, our children's future and the future of our environment. The contentions brought Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false forward would allow this, and provide for estimates of funding. Sign this petition and let the Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel that this is what they should be taking into consideration as well. Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false PUBLIC SUBMISSIONAs of: 5/30/18 1:32 PMReceived: May 29, 2018Status: Pending_PostTracking No. 1k2-93f2-tpv6Comments Due: June 05, 2018 Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: NRC-2018-0017-0003Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear FuelDocument: NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0027Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776Submitter InformationName: janet azarovitzAddress: west falmouth,  MA,  02574Email: jazarovitz@comcast.netSubmitter's Representative: janet azarovitzOrganization: Pilgrim Legislative Advisory CoaltionGeneral CommentI am in agreement with the Citizens Oversight Inc. on this rule. Time is running out. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is going to close in a year but decommissioning plans are in consideration. Entergy responded to current consideration of lifting requirements days after the considerations were made public. The NRC MUST consider the safety of the public more seriously than it does presently, cow towing to the industry, literally the lapdog protector of the industry. The 14 contentions that are being brought forward would ensure safety and long-term planning, moving forward. The 1,000 year design and time-aging analysis to keep the hazardous material housed appropriately makes total sense. Nclear waste is one of those most toxic waste products known to man and must be guarded for practically eons. The proposed revisions are an absolute necessity. The red tape that the NRC has proposed to be eliminated demands that we need as much oversight as possible. We must refocus on the future, our future, our children's future and the future of our environment. The contentions brought Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false forward would allow this, and provide for estimates of funding. Sign this petition and let the Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel that this is what they should be taking into consideration as well. Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false}}
{{#Wiki_filter:PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/30/18 1:32 PM Received:
May 29, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.
1k2-93f2-tpv6 Comments Due:
June 05, 2018
 
Submission Type:
WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On:
NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document:
NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0027 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: janet azarovitz Address:
west falmouth,  MA,  02574 Email: jazarovitz@comcast.net Submitter's Representative:
janet azarovitzOrganization:
Pilgrim Legislativ e Advisory Coaltion General Comment I am in agreement with the Citizens Oversight Inc. on this rule. Time is runn ing out. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is going to close in a year but decommissioning plans are in consideration. Entergy responded to current consideration of lifting requirements days after the considerations were made pu blic. The NRC MUST consider th e safety of the public more seriously than it does presently, cow towing to th e industry, literally the lapdog protector of the industry. The 14 contentions that are being brought forward would ensure safety and long-term planning, moving forward. The 1,000 year design and time
-aging analysis to keep the hazardous material housed appropri ately makes total sense. Nclear waste is one of those most toxic waste products known to man and must be guarded for practically eons
. The proposed revisions are an absolute necessity. The red tape that the NRC has propos ed to be eliminated demands that we need as much oversight as possible. We mu st refocus on the future, our future, our children's future and the future of our environment. The contentions brought Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false forward would allow this, and provide for estimat es of funding. Sign th is petition and let the Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advi sory Panel that this is what they should be taking into consideration as well. Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/30/18 1:32 PM Received:
May 29, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.
1k2-93f2-tpv6 Comments Due:
June 05, 2018
 
Submission Type:
WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On:
NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document:
NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0027 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: janet azarovitz Address:
west falmouth,  MA,  02574 Email: jazarovitz@comcast.net Submitter's Representative:
janet azarovitzOrganization:
Pilgrim Legislativ e Advisory Coaltion General Comment I am in agreement with the Citizens Oversight Inc. on this rule. Time is runn ing out. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is going to close in a year but decommissioning plans are in consideration. Entergy responded to current consideration of lifting requirements days after the considerations were made pu blic. The NRC MUST consider th e safety of the public more seriously than it does presently, cow towing to th e industry, literally the lapdog protector of the industry. The 14 contentions that are being brought forward would ensure safety and long-term planning, moving forward. The 1,000 year design and time
-aging analysis to keep the hazardous material housed appropri ately makes total sense. Nclear waste is one of those most toxic waste products known to man and must be guarded for practically eons
. The proposed revisions are an absolute necessity. The red tape that the NRC has propos ed to be eliminated demands that we need as much oversight as possible. We mu st refocus on the future, our future, our children's future and the future of our environment. The contentions brought Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false forward would allow this, and provide for estimat es of funding. Sign th is petition and let the Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advi sory Panel that this is what they should be taking into consideration as well. Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false}}

Revision as of 23:12, 28 June 2018

Comment (024) from Janet Azarovitz on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
ML18150A638
Person / Time
Site: Pilgrim
Issue date: 05/29/2018
From: Azarovitz J
Pilgrim Legislative Advisory Coalition
To:
NRC/SECY/RAS
SECY/RAS
References
83FR12504 00024, NRC-2018-0017, PRM-72-8
Download: ML18150A638 (2)
v • d • e


Text

PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/30/18 1:32 PM Received:

May 29, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.

1k2-93f2-tpv6 Comments Due:

June 05, 2018

Submission Type:

WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On:

NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document:

NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0027 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: janet azarovitz Address:

west falmouth, MA, 02574 Email: jazarovitz@comcast.net Submitter's Representative:

janet azarovitzOrganization:

Pilgrim Legislativ e Advisory Coaltion General Comment I am in agreement with the Citizens Oversight Inc. on this rule. Time is runn ing out. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is going to close in a year but decommissioning plans are in consideration. Entergy responded to current consideration of lifting requirements days after the considerations were made pu blic. The NRC MUST consider th e safety of the public more seriously than it does presently, cow towing to th e industry, literally the lapdog protector of the industry. The 14 contentions that are being brought forward would ensure safety and long-term planning, moving forward. The 1,000 year design and time

-aging analysis to keep the hazardous material housed appropri ately makes total sense. Nclear waste is one of those most toxic waste products known to man and must be guarded for practically eons

. The proposed revisions are an absolute necessity. The red tape that the NRC has propos ed to be eliminated demands that we need as much oversight as possible. We mu st refocus on the future, our future, our children's future and the future of our environment. The contentions brought Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/

fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false forward would allow this, and provide for estimat es of funding. Sign th is petition and let the Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advi sory Panel that this is what they should be taking into consideration as well. Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/

fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/30/18 1:32 PM Received:

May 29, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.

1k2-93f2-tpv6 Comments Due:

June 05, 2018

Submission Type:

WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On:

NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document:

NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0027 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: janet azarovitz Address:

west falmouth, MA, 02574 Email: jazarovitz@comcast.net Submitter's Representative:

janet azarovitzOrganization:

Pilgrim Legislativ e Advisory Coaltion General Comment I am in agreement with the Citizens Oversight Inc. on this rule. Time is runn ing out. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is going to close in a year but decommissioning plans are in consideration. Entergy responded to current consideration of lifting requirements days after the considerations were made pu blic. The NRC MUST consider th e safety of the public more seriously than it does presently, cow towing to th e industry, literally the lapdog protector of the industry. The 14 contentions that are being brought forward would ensure safety and long-term planning, moving forward. The 1,000 year design and time

-aging analysis to keep the hazardous material housed appropri ately makes total sense. Nclear waste is one of those most toxic waste products known to man and must be guarded for practically eons

. The proposed revisions are an absolute necessity. The red tape that the NRC has propos ed to be eliminated demands that we need as much oversight as possible. We mu st refocus on the future, our future, our children's future and the future of our environment. The contentions brought Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/

fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false forward would allow this, and provide for estimat es of funding. Sign th is petition and let the Massachusetts Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advi sory Panel that this is what they should be taking into consideration as well. Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/

fdms/getcontent?object Id=0900006483304a67&format=xml&showorig=false

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18150A638&oldid=727958"