(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML13044A0112013-01-31031 January 2013
Comment (1) of Mark Sokolow on Proposed Rules, Regulations or Agency Actions on Grand Gulf Early Site Permit
ML13022A4962012-12-13013 December 2012
Comment (248) of Deb Brown on Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML12334A3952012-11-22022 November 2012
Comment (99) of Steve Shuput on Consideration on Environmental Impacts on Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML12334A3872012-11-21021 November 2012
Comment (91) of Kenneth Clark on Consideration on Environmental Impacts on Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML12101A1242012-03-26026 March 2012
Comment (4) of Johnnie Jacobs on Behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Regarding the Renewal of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Operating License
ML12089A0202012-03-0101 March 2012
Comment (3) of Dana Masters on Behalf of Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Opposing the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Renewal Application Review
ML12048A6742012-02-14014 February 2012
Comment (1) of Steven Wright, on Behalf of the National Park Service, on Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Renewal of Facility Operating License NPF-29 for an Additional 20 Years of Operation at Grand Gulf Nu
ML1002002742010-01-13013 January 2010
Comment (2) of Michael J. Larson on Behalf of Entergy Corp., Grand Gulf, Unit 1, on Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1199, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors
ML0720803442007-07-18018 July 2007
Comment (5) of Michael J Larson Opposing New Guidance for Electronic Submittals to the NRC
ML0405407682004-02-0808 February 2004
Comment (7) of Cheryl Catranbone Regarding the Early Site Permit for a New Nuclear Reactor at Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant
ML0405407662004-02-0808 February 2004
Comment (6) of Gilbert K. Woolloy Regarding the Early Site Permit for a New Nuclear Reactor at Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant
ML0405407612004-01-23023 January 2004
Comment (3) of J. Scott Peterson, NEI, Regarding the Grand Gulf Early Site Permit Environmental Scoping Meeting
2013-01-31
[Table view] |
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./ -
