ML061110038

Afternoon Session Comments for Palisades Dseis Meeting from Ruben Dal Monte

ML061110038
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	04/05/2006
From:	Dalmonte R - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML061110038 (3)

Text

April 5, 2006 CO Good Afternoon I am a resident in the South Haven Area. I am an Electrical Professional Engineer.

I worked all my professional life in the Electric Power Field.

I will cover my maj or concerns to the Operating License Renewal of Palisades Nuclear Power Plant MY FIRST CONCERN is in relation to the spent fuel. This is in dry storage outside, but within the premises of the NPP.

This situation produces an increase in the possibilities of uncontrolled releases of radioactive material.

To the already scary possibilities of uncontrolled Plant releases, we have now added releases from the stored spent fuel. This is dangerous.

What is worst is that there is not a credible time table to terminate this storage. It can be there for ever.

Why we have to believe now, when it has passed 40 years without removal? The reason for the difficulty in getting a National Central Depository, results from the fact that the spent fuel has a long half life and requires estable storage for 10,000 years. That, is demonstrated to be impossible.

1

• As a consequence to this concern, I request that no approval of OL renewal be given unless all the existing spent fuels is removed and sent to a National Central Depository.

MY SECOND CONCERN A thorough equipment refurbishing should be a necessary condition to approve the renewal of the OL After 40 years of operation any plant requires a thorough refurbishing for a safe performance.

As a consequence to this concern I request that an independent expert authority defines the extent of the required refurbishing and that the same or similar authority checks the execution of that refurbishing.

THIRD CONCERN- The technology used at Palisades N. P. has the following drawbacks

- FIRST : Produces a large amount of spent fuel (Waste) which is highly radioactive for a long time ( ca 10,000 years )

- SECOND: The waste contains Plutonium, which if enriched, could be used in the manufacture of atomic bombs 2

I

- THIRD It is a low efficient use of the fuel, Q22 uranium. If continuing with this old technology, the amount of available uranium in nature could be exhausted in short time The Nuclear Power Industry is in the process of producing a new generation of Reactors. General Ele ctric Company and Westinghouse Electric Company are doing that, using full fuel recycling.

These Reactors that could be approved by 2015, wil l not have the above mentioned drawbacks of the old reactor technology.

The spent fuel waste would be reduced in amount (

40 times) and would require a shorter time in storage (400 years). Therefore a Central Depository could be readily found.

It would use the energy content in the fuel much more efficiently. The uranium available in nature could last for many centuries.

The plutonium in the waste is not usable for the manufacture of weapon.

For reference see the Scientific American, of December 2005 and the National Geographic of April 2006.

In regard to this concern I recommend that any approval of OL renewal of existing Nuclear Plants be in Moratorium until the year 2015 THANKS R be alMonte 3

UK 3