|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML15124A0232015-04-20020 April 2015 Comment (1) of Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of Alliance for Clean Environment on Draft Guidance Regarding the Alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule - Docket Id NRC-2014-0137 ML13190A3072013-07-0303 July 2013 Comment (11) of Charlie and Betty Shank Opposing Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2 ML13190A3082013-06-27027 June 2013 Comment (12) of Tina Daly Opposing Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2 ML13190A0052013-06-27027 June 2013 Comment (9) of Lindy Nelson on Behalf of Us Department of the Interior, on License Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Supplement 49 ML13182A0112013-06-26026 June 2013 Comment (8) of Charlie and Betty Shank Requesting That NRC to Reconsider Environmental Impacts of Its Decision to Re-License Limerick Units 1 & 2 ML13182A0102013-06-25025 June 2013 Comment (7) of E. Christopher Abruzzo on Behalf of State of PA, Dept of Environmental Protection on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2 ML13182A0402013-06-24024 June 2013 Comment (6) by Lewis Cuthbert, on Behalf of ACE, on Limerick Nuclear Plant'S Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML13172A0482013-06-20020 June 2013 Comment (5) of Janice Monger Opposed to Renewing Limerick Nuclear Plant'S License ML13170A3132013-06-14014 June 2013 Comment (4) of Kelly Jameson Opposing Limerick Nuclear Plant Draft Environmental Impact Statement ML13157A2612013-05-23023 May 2013 Comment (3) of Les Rinehart of Potty Queen Supporting the Relicensing of the Limerick Generating Station ML13141A1522013-05-16016 May 2013 Comment (2) of Marvin Lewis Opposing Application for Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License ML13141A1512013-05-16016 May 2013 Comment (1) of Marvin Lewis Opposing Exelon Generation Company, LLC, License Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License 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 ML11307A4542011-11-0202 November 2011 Comment (39) of Michael Smokowicz, on Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant ML11307A3882011-11-0101 November 2011 Comment (33) of Charlotte Derr, Opposing Limerick License Renewal - NRC 2011-0166 ML11307A4552011-10-31031 October 2011 Comment (38) of Sharon Yohn Opposing License Renewal of Limerick Power Plant ML11307A4562011-10-28028 October 2011 Comment (36) of Jordan Weaver, Et. Al., on Behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council, on Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process for Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 ML11305A0102011-10-28028 October 2011 Comment (32) of Anita Baly, on Behalf of Herself, Opposed to Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant ML11308B3522011-10-28028 October 2011 Comment (37) of Lorraine Ruppe Opposing the Reissuing of a License to Run the Limerick Nuclear Plant ML11305A0092011-10-28028 October 2011 Comment (31) of John and Joyce B. Webber, on Behalf of Selfs, Opposed to Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant ML11305A0082011-10-27027 October 2011 Comment (30) of Charlie Koenig Opposing the Limerick Licensing ML11305A0072011-10-27027 October 2011 Comment (29) of Debby Penrod, Supporting Limerick License Renewal ML11305A0152011-10-27027 October 2011 Comment (25) of Ken Sekellick Opposing an Extension of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Operating License ML11305A0142011-10-27027 October 2011 Comment (24) of Doris Meyers, on Behalf of Self, Opposing Limerick Relicensing ML11306A2442011-10-26026 October 2011 Comment (27) of Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of the Alliance for a Clean Environment, Opposing Limerick License Renewal. Part 1 of 2 ML11306A2452011-10-26026 October 2011 Comment (27) of Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of the Alliance for a Clean Environment, Opposing Limerick License Renewal. Part 2 of 2 ML11307A3872011-10-25025 October 2011 Comment (34) of Michael M. Stokes, on Behalf of Montgomery County, PA Planning Commission, on Limerick Nuclear Generating Station License Renewal, NRC-2011-0166 ML11307A3862011-10-25025 October 2011 Comment (35) of Thomas M. Sullivan, on Behalf of Montgomery County Dept of Public Safety, on Environmental Scoping, Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, Division of License Renewal, NRC-2011-0166 ML11300A0112011-10-23023 October 2011 Comment (21) of Lisa Smoyer, Opposing Limerick License Renewal - NRC Id Docket 2011-0166 ML11301A0722011-10-21021 October 2011 Comment (23) of Lori Molinari, Opposing Limerick Relicensure ML11294A2082011-10-19019 October 2011 Comment (20) of Mary Lou & Herald Smith Opposing License Renewal at Limerick ML11305A0062011-10-15015 October 2011 Comment (28) of Anthony Gonyea, on Behalf of the Onondaga Nation, on Limerick Generating Station License Renewal ML11291A1552011-10-14014 October 2011 Comment (17) of Melissa Antrim on Behalf of Self Opposing Limerick License Renewal ML11291A1562011-10-14014 October 2011 Comment (18) of Michael Antrim on Behalf of Self Opposing the Renewal of Limerick Operating License ML11290A1052011-10-13013 October 2011 Comment (15) of Michael Gale Opposing Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Plant ML11290A1042011-10-13013 October 2011 Comment (14) of Jude Schwegel Opposing Limerick License Renewal ML11290A1032011-10-12012 October 2011 Comment (13) of Cynthia Gale Opposing Relicensing of Limerick Nuclear Power Plant ML11290A1022011-10-12012 October 2011 Comment (12) of Nancy Leaming Opposing the Renewal of Limerick Plant License ML11286A2982011-10-11011 October 2011 Comment (9) of Unknown Individual Re Limerick Generating Station License Renewal ML11300A0122011-10-0808 October 2011 Comment (22) of Unknown Individual Opposing Limerick Nuclear Plant'S License Renewal ML11279A1142011-09-28028 September 2011 Comment (8) of Stockbridge-Munsee Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Review on Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, License Application Renewal ML11279A1112011-09-28028 September 2011 Comment (5) of Sylvia Pollick Opposing Exelon Energy'S License Renewal ML11290A1062011-09-26026 September 2011 Comment (16) of Joe Roberto, on Behalf of Self, Opposing Relicensing of Limerick ML11279A1072011-09-26026 September 2011 Comment (1) of Camilla Lange Serious Reservations and Concerns on Limerick Generating Station License Renewal ML11286A3002011-09-24024 September 2011 Comment (11) by Charles & Elizabeth Shank Opposing License Renewal of Limerick Generating Station ML11279A1132011-09-23023 September 2011 Comment (7) of Brice Obermeyer on Behalf of Delaware Tribe Historic Preservation Office Concerning the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, License Renewal Application Review ML11279A1102011-09-22022 September 2011 Comment (4) of Charlene Padworny Opposing an Extension of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 Operating License ML11286A2992011-09-22022 September 2011 Comment (10) by Richard Kolsch on Limerick Power Plant License Renewal 2015-04-20
[Table view] |
Text
'UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 r1~7'7 l-a IJ or, a"3..1 SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= ,Z. A,14" ~f1)i Charlie and Betty Shank 2461 East High Street, Unit f-28 Pottstown, PA 19464 Cindy Bladey Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB)Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWB-05-BOlM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Public Comment: NRC Draft EIS for approving Exelon's License Renewal Application For Limerick Nuclear Plant Docket ID NRC-2011-0166 We are very disappointed with the NRC's interpretation of the information submitted through public comments during the autumn of 2011 for Limerick's Draft EIS, 2013. We read the EIS public comments that were transcribed for the NRC and it seems that the NRC discarded every public comment from the public except those from Exelon executives, employees, or who benefited financially from Limerick operations.
We do not understand the NRC's blindness to the lack of public protections that we face as a consequence of this NRC decision.
We do not understand how any environmental impact resulting from Limerick operations could be viewed as "small", as the NRC has claimed in its presentation of Limedck's Draft EIS for license renewal.NRC seems to go through the motions of public meetings without being impacted by public concerns about issues that directly affect us. It is hardly helpful to NRC to have the public's distrust.
But when the NRC treats the public as if we have no value beyond our usefulness as taxpayers, valued only for our ability to fuel massive nuclear subsidies, then mistrust follows.NRC's lax regulation of Exelon's Limerick plant adds a financial burden to the public's impacted health, safety, and the environment.
The public bears much of Exelon's business costs, cost over-runs, and costly miscalculations (like its decommissioning fund shortfall).
This is a miscarriage of justice. Worse, the public, which is required to sacrifice our finite water resources to Limerick's nuclear process, could end up being just so much acceptable collateral damage if Limerick suffers a catastrophe.
We could lose everything just to preserve Exelon's financial interest in Limerick.The Draft EIS is a perfect example of NRC's manipulation of perception.
The NRC made statements at its meeting that were contrary to our interpretation of the EIS transcript.
NRC seems to believe that if NRC says something is true, then it becomes truth. This is a problem of incalculable magnitude because it means that NRC's statements can't be relied upon to accurately assess the safety of Limerick Nuclear Plant operations or its true current or potential environment impacts.One evening earlier this year, we went to a small sparsely attended NRC public meeting at the Limerick Township Building.
Despite NRC's statements that it is fully engaged with the public, it looked like the public was not really welcome.Tables and chairs were stacked against the walls (except for a table by the door covered with NRC brochures).
The year before, there had been cloth-covered tables in the open with chairs around them, as well as chairs ringing the room.When we asked who we could talk to about Limerick's safety issues, we were introduced to two NRC representatives.
As we all introduced ourselves, they helped us get out folding chairs and we sat down cordially.
We chatted amiably, but none of our questions were answered.We asked about the tonnage and condition of Limerick's highly-packed fuel pools, the "Untimely Declaration of Notification of Unusual Event Following an Earthquake", and Exelon's deferral of safety upgrades (until the expiration of the current permit), a decade away, which Exelon might or might not address. We got no answers.The year before, we had come to discuss our new discovery of the Sanatoga Fault map and our earthquake concerns.
But NRC officials expressed ignorance of the map, implying they knew nothing of the fault and stood by NRC's decades-old original earthquake analysis for Limerick.We also expressed concerns about the tons of pollution caused by chemicals that come out of the cooling towers as PM-1 0 with attached radionuclides, along with millions of gallons a day of river water which forms the steamy plumes that can contribute to a multitude of health problems and depletes our river. An NRC official told us that it was just steam, "like steam from your tea kettle". But we understand from the Title V Permit that chemicals added to the towers amount to thousands of pounds of pollution, not "just steam".At the Draft EIS meeting, we faced the same problem. As ACE research assistants, we had contributed to preparing ACE graphics for the meeting. But as we asked questions about the areas of concern that we and other members had so carefully illustrated, the NRC representatives listened politely, but did not seem to have any background concerning the issues that worried us. How can an agency regulate a utility without preparing its agency members with necessary information to interface with the public on the safety issues of a particular plant?A Japanese film crew was at the meeting. Last Friday evening, June 2 1 st, we saw a few sound bites of the U.S.NRC public meeting aired on NHK news. We were dismayed because the selection of spliced pieces was being used in Japan to promote nuclear energy resurgence by promising better public involvement with Japan's NRA (its version of the NRC) based on the illusion that it exists in the U.S. It is beyond our understanding how the U.S. could encourage Japan by allowing this erroneous perception of welcomed public involvement with the NRC in the U.S. to. lure the Japanese public into submitting to the unnecessary, devasta ting, and inevitable harms created by nuclear energy production.
It reminded us of Limerick's promise of energy that would be "too cheap to meter". And it is symbolic of NRC's Draft EIS, which is based not on fact, but on the NRC's stubborn refusal to acknowledge thel destruction of the environment that its decisions affect, which imperils public health, safety, and welfare. We feel that the NRC's assessment of Limerick's environmental impacts as "small" is an injustice to millions of people and an affront to society's moral responsibility to be stewards of the environment for our posterity.
We beg the NRC to reconsider its choice to re-licensing Limerick.