ML20205P060

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:59, 12 December 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comments on Des for Decommissioning Facility.Statement Inadequate & Does Not Address Several Major Health & Safety Concerns,Including Earthquakes.Serious Work on Rev to Final Draft Recommended
ML20205P060
Person / Time
Site: Humboldt Bay
Issue date: 05/13/1986
From: Manetas M
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To: Erickson P
NRC
References
FRN-51FR15853 NUDOCS 8605210115
Download: ML20205P060 (1)


Text

. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

00CIce;r $6 IE3

. May 13, 1986 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sirs:

g I would like to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement for Decommissioning the Humboldt Bay Power Plant. I feel this statement is inadequate, and does not address several of the major concerns of health and safety for the people of Humboldt County.

I am a businessman and educator, and have lived in Humboldt County for over twenty years. The future of our e:onomy, and the prosperity of our children depends upon the continued development of tourism,-fisheries, and agriculture. The proposed decommissioning of the nuclear plant threatens these industries.

The close proximity of the plant to Eureka and Highway 101, and to South Bay Elementary School, jeopardizes the health of residents, people driving by, and out children. That plant should never have been built there in the first place, and it should not remain in place for thirty or forty more years.

The maj.or concern not fully addressed in the Environmental Statement is earthquakes. The spent fuel and wastes will be stored in a leaking pool for thirty years. Has the secondary liner been fully designed to withstand earth movement? What are the impacts ar.$ the backup systems associated with a loss of water from the spent fuel storage pool? Would an accident threaten the fisheries of Humboldt Bay and the Pacific waters?

Would the agriculture land near the plant become contaminated?

Would the population of 50,000 around the bay have to be evacuated? Would U.S. 101, our major corridor be useable?

We have lived with this nuclear plant for some twenty years now, and we have been lied to, deceived, cheated, and misled by both the utility and the government. We criticize the Soviets for their handling of the Chernobyl accident, and yet our authorities have acted in an equally criminal fashion.

The Draf t Environmental Statement is totally-insuf ficient, and I urge the commission to do some serious homework in revisions for the Final Draft.

Sin ere y,

/

/ ,

/ /'

8605210115 860513 Michael J. Manetas PDR ADOCK 05000133  !

D PDR qf 1094 Birch McKinleyville, CA 95521 (,CA (707) 839-3779 g 1 _

1 w ,Me g.'

se v a;

^

dh Q 3^ y ly 4 p n'R3 y  ;

k<1111

- %g

@g e Q %

,el33 1 c . 2 2g o

4 O. * . -

,. N$ T > '

to O -

1 4 y (b SEL

+A ~

a s z$ .

u u dr

\

4 ;E 3 kT A

i 5

.l ,

.i l t

tt Sh .

q .g 2 ,

e .

i56 ang ,

A ny

( 5o$ "I -

's. .

s.

_ _ _. . . , . _ _ _. __ . . _ _