|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML19004A0752019-01-0303 January 2019
Comment of Janet Tauro on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML19003A2422018-12-28028 December 2018
Comment of Donald Weigl on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18362A0952018-12-23023 December 2018
Comment of Gary Defranco of Trans Tech Industries on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18324A7762018-11-18018 November 2018
Comment (2) of Alfred Decker on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18302A2232018-10-29029 October 2018
Comment (1) of Brain Kube on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18255A0422018-09-12012 September 2018
Comment (3) of Ron Martyn on Behalf of Community Civic Affairs Group on Decommissioning Creek Nuclear of Exelon'S Oyster Generating Station
ML11264A0902011-09-13013 September 2011
Comment (8) of John Runyan, on Behalf of Self, on Consideration of Rulemaking to Address Prompt Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations
ML0822000512008-07-0909 July 2008
Comment (2) of David P. Helker, on Behalf of Exelon and Amergen, Concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1195, Availability of Electric Power Sources.
ML0808604892008-03-13013 March 2008
Comment (4) of David P. Helker on Behalf of Exelon Generation and Amergen Supporting Draft Regulatory Guide DG-5015, Training and Qualification of Security Personnel at Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities.
ML0720501772007-04-26026 April 2007
Local Area Personal Income
ML0706600532007-02-21021 February 2007
Comment (1) of John Filippelli on Behalf of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Renewal of Operating License for Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0630703242006-10-21021 October 2006
Comment (2) of Raymond Tierney, on Reactor Oversight Process as Described in Solicitation Letter #7590-01-P
ML0628605662006-09-15015 September 2006
2006/09/15-Comment (1) of J. Lipoti Supporting to the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03 for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analyses
ML0626102482006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (20) of Willie Decamp Regarding Waste Accumulation for Oyster Creek License Renewal
ML0626800332006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (23) of Richard Webster, on NUREG-1437:Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Supplement 28, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Draft Report for Comment: Comment on Safety & Secu
ML0626504562006-09-14014 September 2006
Comment (22) of Mary Miazza, Opposing Relicensing of 35 Year Old Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0626203482006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (21) of Kenneth C. Koschek on License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0626102442006-09-13013 September 2006
2006/09/13-Comment (18) of Jennifer Samson on Behalf of Clean Ocean Action and American Littoral Society on NUREG-1437: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Suppl, 28, Oyster Creek Draft Report for C
ML0626102452006-09-12012 September 2006
Comment (19) of Edith Gbur Re Oyster Creek EIS
ML0626102362006-09-11011 September 2006
Comment (12) of Eugene Creamer on Nrc'S Environmental Impact Statement for Renewal of License for Oyster Creek
ML0626103592006-09-11011 September 2006
Comment (11) of Richard Webster, Resending EIS Comments
ML0626104162006-09-0808 September 2006
Comment (10) of Raechelle Edwards on Behalf of Julia Lemense Huff Re Renewal of Oyster Creek License
ML0626102422006-09-0707 September 2006
2006/09/07-Comment (16) of John Filippelli on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Oyster Creek. Recommends That the Final SEIS Address Opportunities for Pollution Prevention & Waste Recycling
ML0626102342006-09-0707 September 2006
Comment (9) of Robert Scro on Behalf of Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Opposing the Generic Environmental Impact Station for Oyster Creek,
ML0625501632006-09-0606 September 2006
Comment (5) of Jessie Carr, Re Comments on Draft Supplement 28 to GEIS (NUREG-1437) Specific to Application for 20-Year License Extension for Oyster Creek Generating Station
ML0625501702006-09-0505 September 2006
Comment (8) of Tom D. Jones Voicing Concerns and Objections to Relicensing of Nuclear Power Plant in Lacey Township, Nj
ML0626102402006-09-0404 September 2006
Comment (15) of Mary Mazza Opposing Relicensing Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant; So Much Technology for Safer Cleaner Energy Alternatives Are Now Available and During the Next 5 Years, More Will Be
ML0626102392006-09-0404 September 2006
Comment (14) of Joan K. Rubin and Gail Marsh Saxer, League of Women Voters, on Nrc'S Draft Generic Environmental Impact Study for Re-Licensing of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. League Supports Recommendation by the State of Nj
ML0625501682006-09-0101 September 2006
Comment (7) of David J. Mckeon, Re Oyster Creek EIS - Question on Strontium-90 Emission
ML0630001342006-08-30030 August 2006
Comment (27) of Diane Lazinsky Regarding the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Geis) for License Renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (NUREG-1437, Suppl. 28)
ML0625501582006-08-30030 August 2006
2006/08/30-Comment (3) of Michael J. Kennish on Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Geis) Regarding License Renewal of Oyster Creek
ML0625501662006-08-30030 August 2006
Comment (6) of Edith Gbur, Re Questions Regarding EIS
ML0625501612006-08-28028 August 2006
2006/08/28-Comment (4) of Michael P. Gallagher on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 28 Regarding Oyster Creek, Dated June 2006
ML0624800412006-08-0909 August 2006
2006/08/09-Comment (2) of Jim Saxton Opposing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Issued as Part of the Operating License Renewal Process for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Facility in Forked River, New Jersey
ML0620503092006-07-14014 July 2006
Comment (1) of Joseph Mangano on Renewal of Oyster Creek License for Another 20 Years. Urges NRC to Thoroughly Examine Potential Health Risks from Plant Using Available Data
ML0630001172006-07-13013 July 2006
Comment (26) of Pat Crocker Supporting License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Station
ML0630001062006-07-0505 July 2006
Comment (24) of Dotty Reynolds on Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant License Renewal Hearings
ML0436200752004-12-10010 December 2004
Comment (10) of Jill Lipoti on Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, Dated October 25, 2004
ML0300204912002-12-16016 December 2002
Comment from Jill Lipoti on the Third Year of Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)
2019-01-03
[Table view] |
Text
Page 1 of 3 Doris Mendiola -OCNGS EIS comments From: Eugene Creamer <kb2gz@optonline.net>
4 To: <OysterCreekEIS
@nrc.gov>
_7C Date: 09/11/2006 12:43 AM "7/ / 04/- /c" r-
Subject:
OCNGS EIS comments 7i 1 .7 42 II Ti CA)Michael Masnik, Environmental Project Manager Thank you for coming to the New Jersey Shore and explaining the NRC's Environmental Impact Statement process for the proposed Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station life extension.
I -commented at the July 12, 2006 public meeting and noted the following:
The Atomic Energy Commission issued a final EIS for OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station in 1974. Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ascended to operation in 1969 and the EIS is an "after the fact" EIS.Figure 2-3 (OCNGS site boundary map), on page 2-4, delineates both Oyster Creek and the South Branch Forked River west of the Station with dotted lines. (Usually, dotted lines indicate watercourses of an intermittent nature). The USGS quad for the area delineates both streams with solid blue lines, well beyond the Garden State Parkway to the west.The NJDEP maps indicate that both streams are watershed of the Pinelands National Reserve, file://C:\temp\GW
}00001 .HTM/-_kX:5-3 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 3 FF I,'IW Section 2.1.7- Power Transmission System is silent with respect to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station output power transformer(s)
......Location, ownership, responsibility, secondary containment?
Section 2.2.2 -Water Use. The statement regarding "less than 100,000 gallons per day" on lines 27 & 28, page 2-19, is incorrect.
The 100,000 gpd is a regulatory threshold in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:19- 1.4 of the New Jersey Water Supply Allocation Rules.Also, Section 2.2.2 references NJDEP permits and metering for on-site water wells and is silent regarding the proposed continuous diversion of the entire South Branch Forked River fresh watershed (the product of a federal initiative).
In my opinion, all water resources should be identified and quantified because the proposed action has direct impacts.The discussion about the applicant's alternative closed loop cooling system was shallow because it failed to link any air pollutant emissions with cooling water quality.ile://C:\temp\GW 100001.HTM 09/11/2006 fi& n Page 3 of 3 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS. Please contact me if you have any questions or require clarification.
Eugene Creamer PO Box 543 Belmar, NJ 07719 kb2gz@arrl.net file:/C:\temp\GW
}0000 I.HTM 09/11/2006 c:\temp\GW}OQOQ1 .TMP Page 1 c:\temp\GW)00001.TMP Page 11 Mail Envelope Properties (4504E952.C12
- 2: 64530)
Subject:
Crieation Date From: Created By: OCNGS EIS comments 09/11/2006 12:41:41 AM Eugene Creamer <kb2gz@optonline.net>
kb2gz@optonline.net Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPOO1 .HQGWDOO1 OysterCreekEIS Post Office TWGWPOO1 .HQGWDOO1 Route nrc.gov Files MESSAGE TEXT.htm image001.jpg Mime.822 Options Expiration Date: Priority: ReplyRequested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security: Size 2193 10016 178150 257982 None Standard No None No Standard Date & Time 09/11/2006 12:41:41 AM 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