ML052220381
| ML052220381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/2005 |
| From: | Jeffrey S - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 70FR32381 00011 | |
| Download: ML052220381 (8) | |
Text
ES Montcelo~lS- Fnal opy Monicelo Pge I MonticelloEIS - Final copy: Monticello EIS Page 1 From: "Susu Jeffrey" <susujeffrey@msn.com>
To: <MonticelloEIS@nrc.gov>
Date: Tue. Aug 2, 2005 8:05 PM
Subject:
Final copy: Monticello EIS ~ 1,_5 z2- g/
Susu Jeffrey 200 Oliver Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55405-2045 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch 8-3 MD Division of Administrative Services CZ C.-)
Office of Administration -0 CD Irn C/1)
Mailstop T-6D 59 UD IU-F Ifi 25 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission JJ Washington DC 20555-0001 Regarding an Environmental Impact Statement for an Independent Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Dump at Monticello Nuclear Power Plant on the Mississippi River
'The problems we face today cannot be solved by the minds that created them."
-Albert Einstein August 1, 2005
Dear Chief:
-Exporting Bomb Grade Nuclear Materials Abroad An obscure amendment to the federal energy bill (S706, HR22189) just passed 7/29/05, eases the restriction on overseas export of bomb grade uranium. (Increased nuclear proliferation risks from allowing export of highly enriched uranium abroad [sec. 633]. The reason: production of medical isotopes. You can
'5/ &,4ET
- .:r' e- 5 A1
'OD A-t --I11--3
Page 21 I
I MonticelloEIS - Final copy:
MonticelloElS - Final EIS Monticello EIS copy: Monticello Page 2 also make the isotopes using lower enrichment levels that don't have the same proliferation risks; many isotope producers have already switched. But not Ontario firm MDS Nordion. The US should incur no increased proliferation risks to slow the time when MDS Nordion must embrace its own future.)
Exporting toxic and hazardous waste is a common practice for a rich countries. Looser export regulations increase the ability of any nuclear materials to enter the international market. The illegal trade in nuclear materials is a grave concern of the current administration. So long as we are making more uranium waste, more of that waste will be available internationally.
With the clear and present threat of nuclear terrorism, exporting bomb grade uranium would be unthinkable if it were not real. Amassing deadly bomb-grade materials tempts corporate decision-makers to take the export "solution."
What guarantees exist to keep Monticello nuclear waste in our own state or nation?
--Nuclear terrorism A Mississippi River nuclear site-what a tempting target, the drinking water source for 18,000,000 Americans.
What was Zacarias Moussaoui training for? For a fictional treatment of an attack on N-waste casks see, HEADWATERS, a suspense novel by Bloomington, Minnesota insurance agent Jerry Leppart, Galde Press, Inc., Lakeville MN, 1998 (3-years before 911 1.) The 240-page paperback novel goes directly from the Amiriya Shelter bombing in Baghdad (2/13191) to Prairie Island.
A single person with a shoulder held launcher can breach cask security without trespassing. Nuclear site security is relative-at best. The fewer the nukes, the less the threat. Nuclear pollution has now infected the southern hemisphere's jet stream.
Please crunch the numbers-it only takes one "accident," one terrorist incident-and it's just a matter of time.
Don't roll the nuclear dice at Monticello, upstream of the Twin Cities water intake systems, upwind of half of North America.
Nuclear terrorism is not just an anthropocentric threat. Pro-nuke decision makers also determine the future for flora and fauna.
-"The EIS will address radiological safety issues to help inform the public...."
Public information has been limited to industry spin regarding the CON, the appropriate acronym for Certificate of Need for continued nuclear generation, the most expensive form of electricity. Further work needs to be done regarding informing the public about storing retired nuclear fuel rods above ground in the Mississippi floodplain.
Page 3 I I MonticelloEIS MonticelloElS - Final copy: Monticello EIS
- Page 3 l For example, state Rep. Michael Beard (R-Shakopee) said during a Regulated Industries committee hearing that he did not "believe" there was plutonium in spent nuclear fuel rods. Beard is a Christian publisher who believes in the virgin birth but somehow missed the contents of hot, used N-fuel rods. If state representatives who make financial decisions for the people, the environment, the future of the state, if such people do not know what's inside a dry storage cask, you are outreaching with a very short arm.
-Cost What is the Full Cost Accounting of storing toxic and hazardous waste for 200 years? Full Cost Accounting would include: on-site storage; decommissioning expenses; clean up costs for expected releases, spills and accidents; health cost for workers and their families, etc.
If the company goes out of business and abandons the N-site, which seems to be the industry pattern, who pays? If there are not criminal statutes prohibiting corporate officers from taking the money and running, they will run and leave us with a domestic dirty bomb site and the bills.
When I think of 200 years in the future, I recall that in 1805 Zebulon Pike journeyed up the Mississippi River and purchased 9-miles on either side of the Mississippi River from the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi, upstream to the falls now called St. Anthony. Pike brought with him 60 barrels of whiskey and $200. Only two of seven Dakota leaders signed the treaty. Are you the few leaders who will sign away the Mississippi River for the uncountable future?
Security costs for nuke plants are being covered by taxpayers, rather than consumers. (2005 Energy Bill sec.s 661-667) Increasingly large scale plants; radioactivity; vast disruptions; huge terrorist targets. More security is clearly warranted. But costs of that security should be paid for by those who use the product (electricity) rather than by random taxpayers because, like pollution controls, it forces these costs to be reflected in power prices, allowing energy sources with a more favorable security profile to gain market share. While the bill doesn't state the funding levels, earlier estimates peg the cost at roughly $50 million per year for assessing risks, improving background checks and plant/fuel procedures. Extra costs currently being incurred by all levels of the policy and national guard at these facilities is not reflected in these estimates.
--Permanent Solution There is an assumption that the federal government will somehow "take care of' the N-waste. However, since the last century when nuclear weapons/power came on-line there is no clear solution about long term storage. There has been a lot of money spent and rhetoric said, but nothing is settled.
We have no guarantees. We do however have a rising cancer rate, relative disincentives for alternative, decentralized energy production, and huge inefficiencies in energy use-accounting for about half of the energy produced according to experts. It would be safer and cheaper to become efficient. Where is the leadership for tightening-up?
Page 4 I MonticelloEIS MonticelloElS - Final
- EIS copy: Monticello EIS Final copy: Page 4 Objectively, relicensing an old nuclear power plant beyond its expected peak performance is an accident waiting to happen. Picture a Bell Curve, problems with a complicated energy plant occur at the beginning and end of its production-time. Where is Monticello on that curve? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl-the lesson will be repeated until it is learned.
Nuclear technology is dinosauric-it's from the last millennium. It's too big, inappropriate, uncontrollable.
Transmitting electricity from big generating stations is wasteful, destructive of the environment, and extremely profitable until something goes wrong.
The "permanent" solution is transition to gasification, wind, solar roof panels, weather stripping, tighter windows-a thousand improvements to improve our quality of life and also boost local employment.
Are you the heroes who will say no to nukes and yes to progressive, decentralized, safe energy production? This is America. We invented modern citizen democracy. We are an inventive society. We can supply the world with smart power tools-or continue our decline and deliver to ourselves a dirty bomb of our own making. "The peaceful atom is a bomb."
I pray you will think outside the box.
Blessed Be.
Susu Jeffrey A paper copy of the letter will be mailed.
Page 1.1 I c:\temp\GW)00001.TMP IcAtemp\GW}OO001 .TMP Page 1 I Mail Envelope Properties (42FOOA59.BA7: 0: 11175)
Subject:
Final copy: Monticello EIS Creation Date: Tue, Aug 2,2005 8:05 PM From: "Susu Jeffrey" <susujeffrey~msn.com>
Created By: susujeffreyemsn.com Recipients nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFNDO MonticelloEIS Post Office Route owf4_po.OWFNDO nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 7996 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 8:05 PM TEXT.htm 23864 Monticello EIS letter to NRC 7-05.doc 39936 Mime.822 90819 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard
Susu Jeffrey 200 Oliver Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55405-2045 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration Mailstop T-6D 59 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Regarding an Environmental Impact Statement for an Independent Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Dump at Monticello Nuclear Power Plant on the Mississippi River "The problems we face today cannot be solved by the minds that created them."
-Albert Einstein August 1, 2005
Dear Chief:
-Exporting Bomb Grade Nuclear Materials Abroad An obscure amendment to the federal energy bill (S706, HR2189) just passed 7/29/05, eases the restriction on overseas export of bomb grade uranium. (Increased nuclear proliferation risks from allowing export of highly enriched uranium abroad [sec.
633]. The reason: production of medical isotopes. You can also make the isotopes using lower enrichment levels that don't have the same proliferation risks; many isotope producers have already switched. But not Ontario firm MDS Nordion. The US should incur no increased proliferation risks to slow the time when MDS Nordion must embrace its own future.)
Exporting toxic and hazardous waste is a common practice for a rich countries. Looser export regulations increase the ability of any nuclear materials to enter the international market. The illegal trade in nuclear materials is a grave concern of the current administration. So long as we are making more uranium waste, more of that waste will be available internationally.
With the clear and present threat of nuclear terrorism, exporting bomb grade uranium would be unthinkable if it were not real. Amassing deadly bomb-grade materials tempts corporate decision-makers to take the export "solution."
What guarantees exist to keep Monticello nuclear waste in our own state or nation?
--Nuclear terrorism A Mississippi River nuclear site-what a tempting target, the drinking water source for 18,000,000 Americans.
What was Zacarias Moussaoui training for? For a fictional treatment of an attack on N-waste casks see, HEADWATERS, a suspense novel by Bloomington, Minnesota S.Jeffrey/08.01.05/p. 1.
insurance agent Jerry Leppart, Galde Press, Inc., Lakeville MN, 1998 (3-years before 9/11.) The 240-page paperback novel goes directly from the Amiriya Shelter bombing in Baghdad (2/13191) to Prairie Island.
A single person with a shoulder held launcher can breach cask security without trespassing. Nuclear site security is relative-at best. The fewer the nukes, the less the threat. Nuclear pollution has now infected the southern hemisphere's jet stream.
Please crunch the numbers-it only takes one "accident," one terrorist incident-and it's just a matter of time. Don't roll the nuclear dice at Monticello, upstream of the Twin Cities water intake systems, upwind of half of North America.
Nuclear terrorism is not just an anthropocentric threat. Pro-nuke decision makers also determine the future for flora and fauna.
-"The EIS will address radiological safety issues to help inform the public...."
Public information has been limited to industry spin regarding the CON, the appropriate acronym for Certificate of Need for continued nuclear generation, the most expensive form of electricity. Further work needs to be done regarding informing the public about storing retired nuclear fuel rods above ground in the Mississippi floodplain.
For example, state Rep. Michael Beard (R-Shakopee) said during a Regulated Industries committee hearing that he did not "believe" there was plutonium in spent nuclear fuel rods. Beard is a Christian publisher who believes in the virgin birth but somehow missed the contents of hot, used N-fuel rods. If state representatives who make financial decisions for the people, the environment, the future of the state, if such people do not know what's inside a dry storage cask, you are outreaching with a very short arm.
-Cost What is the Full Cost Accounting of storing toxic and hazardous waste for 200 years?
Full Cost Accounting would include: on-site storage; decommissioning expenses; clean up costs for expected releases, spills and accidents; health cost for workers and their families, etc.
If the company goes out of business and abandons the N-site, which seems to be the industry pattern, who pays? If there are not criminal statutes prohibiting corporate officers from taking the money and running, they will run and leave us with a domestic dirty bomb site and the bills.
When I think of 200 years in the future, I recall that in 1805 Zebulon Pike journeyed up the Mississippi River and purchased 9-miles on either side of the Mississippi River from the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi, upstream to the falls now called St.
Anthony. Pike brought with him 60 barrels of whiskey and $200. Only two of seven Dakota leaders signed the treaty. Are you the few leaders who will sign away the Mississippi River for the uncountable future?
Security costs for nuke plants are being covered by taxpayers, rather than consumers.
(2005 Energy Bill sec.s 661-667) Increasingly large scale plants; radioactivity; vast disruptions; huge terrorist targets. More security is clearly warranted. But costs of that security should be paid for by those who use the product (electricity) rather than by S.Jeffrey/08.01.05/p. 2.
random taxpayers because, like pollution controls, it forces these costs to be reflected in power prices, allowing energy sources with a more favorable security profile to gain market share. While the bill doesn't state the funding levels, earlier estimates peg the cost at roughly $50 million per year for assessing risks, improving background checks and plant/fuel procedures. Extra costs currently being incurred by all levels of the policy and national guard at these facilities is not reflected in these estimates.
-Permanent Solution There is an assumption that the federal government will somehow "take care of" the N-waste. However, since the last century when nuclear weapons/power came on-line there is no clear solution about long term storage. There has been a lot of money spent and rhetoric said, but nothing is settled.
We have no guarantees. We do however have a rising cancer rate, relative disincentives for alternative, decentralized energy production, and huge inefficiencies in energy use-accounting for about half of the energy produced according to experts. It would be safer and cheaper to become efficient. Where is the leadership for tightening-up?
Objectively, relicensing an old nuclear power plant beyond its expected peak performance is an accident waiting to happen. Picture a Bell Curve, problems with a complicated energy plant occur at the beginning and end of its production-time. Where is Monticello on that curve? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl-the lesson will be repeated until it is learned.
Nuclear technology is dinosauric-it's from the last millennium. It's too big, inappropriate, uncontrollable. Transmitting electricity from big generating stations is wasteful, destructive of the environment, and extremely profitable until something goes wrong.
The "permanent" solution is transition to gasification, wind, solar roof panels, weather stripping, tighter windows-a thousand improvements to improve our quality of life and also boost local employment.
Are you the heroes who will say no to nukes and yes to progressive, decentralized, safe energy production? This is America. We invented modern citizen democracy. We are an inventive society. We can supply the world with smart power tools-or continue our decline and deliver to ourselves a dirty bomb of our own making. "The peaceful atom is a bomb."
I pray you will think outside the box.
Blessed Be.
Susu Jeffrey A paper copy of the letter will be mailed.
S.Jeffrey/08.01.05/p. 3.