|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML24029A2902024-01-29029 January 2024 Comment (3) E-mail Regarding Diablo Canyon Lr EIS Scoping ML24025A1542024-01-25025 January 2024 Comment (2) E-mail Regarding Diablo Canyon Lr EIS Scoping ML24025A1402024-01-24024 January 2024 Comment (1) E-mail Regarding Diablo Canyon Lr EIS Scoping ML22228A1642022-08-15015 August 2022 Comment (5) of Cindy Marie Absey, Neil Havlik & Kim Murry on Behalf of League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activ ML22203A0462022-07-21021 July 2022 Comment (3) of Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc., on Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report ML22203A0452022-07-21021 July 2022 Comment (2) of Jane Swanson on Behalf of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace on Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report ML22202A4242022-07-19019 July 2022 Comment (1) of Anonymous on Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report ML15275A2152015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (40) of Bruce Campbell on Helium Finding Adds New Wrinkle to Newport-Inglewood Fault ML15275A2132015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (38) of Mary Ivora on Environmental Benefits of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant ML15275A2292015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (31) Regarding Civilian Nuclear Power ML15275A2282015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (30) of Unknown Individual Opposing Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 ML15275A2302015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (32) of Joe Ivora Supporting the Relicensing of Diablo Canyon ML15275A2342015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (36) of Elizabeth Brousse on Behalf of Mothers for Peace on the License Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant ML15275A2312015-09-30030 September 2015 Comment (33) of Debby Nicklas, on Behalf of French Hospital Medical Center, Supporting the License Renewal and Ongoing Operations of PG&E ML15282A3002015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (45) of Allen Myers Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15289A3742015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (84) of Gene Nelson of Californians for Green Nuclear Power Supporting Renewal of the License Application for Diablo Canyon Power Plant ML15292A5462015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (103) of Becky Ota and Craig Shuman, on Behalf of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, on Notice of Intent to Reinitiate the Environmental Scoping Process for the Review of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant License Renewal ML15287A4362015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (71) of Gene Nelson Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact ML15282A2982015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (43) of Minea Herwitz Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15258A3472015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (29) of Craig Shuman on Behalf of the State of CA - Natural Resources Agency, Regarding Notice of Intent to Reinitiate the Environmental Scoping Process for the Review of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ML15282A3042015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (49) of David Traub Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15282A3032015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (48) of Anonymous Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant License Renewal ML15292A5452015-09-0101 September 2015 Comment (102) of Bruce Campbell on Deis in Regards to Diablo Canyon Facility License Extension ML15292A2362015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (92) of Oliver Mellan on Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License ML15292A2352015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (91) of Alexander Cannara on Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A2372015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (93) of Bob Greene on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A2382015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (88) of Meagan Wilson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A2392015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (89) of Mike Kirkwood on Behalf of Economic Alliance of Northern Santa Barbara County on Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License ML15292A2402015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (90) of Oliver Mellan on Application for Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant License ML15292A3392015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (94) of Sarah Risley, Heather Tarango, Shilo Terek, Megan Wilson, and Kristin Zaitz Supporting Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3402015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (95) of Madeline Cimone on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3412015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (96) of Daryl Gale Opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3892015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (97) of Anthony Allen Bisset Opposing on the Renewal of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 License; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3902015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (98) of Joseph Ivora on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15258A3452015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (28) of Ann Mcpherson, on Behalf of Us EPA, on Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Operating License Renewal for Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California ML15292A3912015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (99) of Nina Beety, on Behalf of Smart Meter Harm, Opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A3922015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (100) of Margaret Smith on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15292A5442015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (101) of Antoinette Stein on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A4052015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (82) of Anthony Armini on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A4032015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (81) of William P Gloege on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A3132015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (83) of Gene Nelson Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3142015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (85) of Lmh Anonymous Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3152015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (86) from Anonymous Opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3162015-08-31031 August 2015 Comment (87) of Steve Mcgrath Opposing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ML15289A3982015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (76) William P. Gloege of Supporting Re-Licensing of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant ML15289A4022015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (80) of Jerry Brown on Behalf of World Business Academy on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A4012015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (79) of Kirk Gothier on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A4002015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (78) of Gene Nelson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal ML15289A3992015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (77) of Gene Nelson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal ML15289A3972015-08-30030 August 2015 Comment (75) of Jane Swanson on Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; License Renewal 2024-01-29
[Table view] |
Text
Page 1 01 2, NRCREP -docket no. 72-26 No significant impact regarding spent fuel storage From: mark phillips <mrppy@fix.net>
e, )ýTo: <NRCREP @nrc .gov>Date: 06/20/2007 9:44 PM
Subject:
docket no. 72-26 No significant impact regarding spent fuel storage To James R. Hall, I am writing in regards to Docket No. 72-26 with comments on the NRC Staff's Supplement to the Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Construction and Operation of the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.
This document was written in response to the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.NRC to address the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the Diablo Canyon dry cask storage facility.
I am outraged by the simplistic and inadequate assessment.
The NRC has done a very poor job of evaluating the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the Diablo Canyon facility.
The EA distorts and minimizes the environmental impacts of attacks on the facility by using hidden and unjustified assumptions.
The EA rules out credible threat scenarios that could cause significant environmental damage by contaminating the environment.
The EA creates the appearance of compliance With NEPA's requirements to consider reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts even if their probability is low by claiming to consider all "plausible" attack scenarios.
But the EA clearly fa 'ils to consider credible scenarios that could cause significant environmental damage. For instance, the EA fails to consider attack scenarios in which penetration of a spent-fuel canister is accompanied by the use of an incendiary device to ignite the zirconium cladding of the spent fuel. It should include a detailed description of a wide range of potential attack scenarios and in which several canisters could be affected.
These details could be available to persons cleared to receive such information.
The EA also fails to identify the key documents on which it relies, thus making it impossible for any party to verify the appropriateness of its reliance on those documents.
In violation of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the EA fails to identify the scientific and other sources it relies on for its conclusion that the impacts of attacks on the Diablo Canyon facility pose no significant impact.Additionally, CEO regulation requires an agency to "identify any methodologies used" in its environmental analysis.
In violation of this requirement, the EA fails to provide a clear description of the NRC's process for identifying plausible or credible attack scenarios and assessing their consequences to determine whether they are significant.
The EA does not describe any analysis that it did for the specific purpose of complying with N EPA. Instead, it describes an analysis that apparently took place in 2002, long before the Ninth Circuit's decision, and that apparently was based on compliance with NRC's AEA-based security requirements.
The EA fails to clearly establish that the 2002 analysis was based on reasonable foreseeability of impacts under NEPA.In considering the consequences of potential releases of radioactive material, the NRC has employed only one indicator, namely "the potential for early fatalities." To exclude consequences other than early fatalities is absurd. Land contamination is a very serious im pabt that can cause delayed fatalities, illness, and billions of dollars in expenses of relocation and lost income.5 file :/C :\temp\GW)}00001 .HTM 06/21/2007 Page 2, 01 2, The EA for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage facility completely fails to demonstrate the NRC made a "fully informed and well-considered" determination of no significant impacts.Sincerely, mark r. phillips atascadero, ca.PS it is hard to imagine the callousness that must exist to issue a report that only includes "the potential for early fatalities." folks that die later don't count in your analysis?
ground that is contaminated so as to be uninhabitable is not'a concern?I i'm afraid this is more of the same from a nuclear power industry that has demonstrated again and again its capacity to lie, distort and ignore their way to ever higher profitability.
disgust is too genteel a term.file://C:temp\GW I00001 .HTM 0/120 06/21/2007 c:\temp\GWJ00002.TMP Page 1 ýc:\ternp\GWJ00002.TMP Page 1 I Mail Envelope Properties (4679D7D4.ED1 9:7889)
Subject:
Creation Date From: Created By: docket no. 72-26 No significant impact regarding spent fuel storage Wed, Jun 20, 2007 9:43 PM mark phillips <mrppy@fix.net>
mrppy@fix.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPOOl1.HQGWDOO 1 NRCREP charter.net jzk CC (Jill Z)Post Office TWGWPOOI1.HQGWDOO 1 Route nrc.gov charter.net Files MESSAGE TEXT.htm Mime. 822 Options Expiration Date: Pri ority: ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security: Size 4141 8215 15019 Date & Time Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:43 PM None Standard No None No Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled