Similar Documents at Fermi |
---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARML14022A2822013-12-21021 December 2013 Comment (00930) of Michael Keegan on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336B4712013-12-0101 December 2013 Comment (00306) of Charles Bagwell on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML1125211062011-09-0909 September 2011 Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 ESBWR Design Certification Amendment ML1125210392011-09-0909 September 2011 Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment NRC-2010-0135, Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment2011-09-0909 September 2011 Commission Memorandum and Order (CLI-11-05) Regarding Pr 52 AP1000 Design Certification Amendment NRC-2008-0404, Comment (136) of Joan Mumaw on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update2009-02-0404 February 2009 Comment (136) of Joan Mumaw on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update NRC-2008-0482, 2009/02/04-Comment (136) of Joan Mumaw on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update2009-02-0404 February 2009 2009/02/04-Comment (136) of Joan Mumaw on Pr 51 Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation, and Pr 51 Waste Confidence Decision Update ML0813402842008-05-0808 May 2008 Comment (22) of Ronald W Gaston on Behalf of Detroit Edison on Proposed Rules PR-20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72 Regarding Decommissioning Planning ML0708100202007-03-20020 March 2007 Comment (2) Submitted by Matt Kirkland on Proposed Rules Pr 40, 72, 74 and 150 Regarding Regulatory Improvements to the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System NRC-06-0081, Comment (7) Submitted by Detroit Edison, Ronald W. Gaston, on Proposed Rules PR-2, 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 63, 70, 71, 73, 76, and 150, Regarding Protection of Safeguards Information2006-12-29029 December 2006 Comment (7) Submitted by Detroit Edison, Ronald W. Gaston, on Proposed Rules PR-2, 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 63, 70, 71, 73, 76, and 150, Regarding Protection of Safeguards Information NRC-05-0087, Comment (68) Submitted by Detroit Edison, Ronald W Gaston on Proposed Rule PR-26 Regarding Fitness for Duty Programs2005-12-27027 December 2005 Comment (68) Submitted by Detroit Edison, Ronald W Gaston on Proposed Rule PR-26 Regarding Fitness for Duty Programs ML0536203092005-12-27027 December 2005 Comment (60) Submitted by Andrew V. Antrassian, on Behalf of the Utility Workers Union of America, on Proposed Rule PR-26 Regarding Fitness for Duty Programs NRC-05-0028, Comment (2) Submitted by Detroit Edison, Norman K Peterson Supporting Proposed Rule 170 & 171 Re Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fy 20052005-03-22022 March 2005 Comment (2) Submitted by Detroit Edison, Norman K Peterson Supporting Proposed Rule 170 & 171 Re Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fy 2005 ML0410602122004-04-0808 April 2004 Comment (6) Submitted by Detroit Edison, Norman Peterson, on Proposed Rules Pr 19, 20 & 50 Regarding Collection, Reporting, or Posting of Information; Availability of Draft Rule Language NRC-03-0058, Comment (10) Submitted by Detroit Edison ,Norman K. Peterson, Supporting Sander C. Perle Petition for Rulemaking PRM 20-25, Re Requirements That Dosimetry Used as Primary Dosimeter Shall Be Accredited2003-07-15015 July 2003 Comment (10) Submitted by Detroit Edison ,Norman K. Peterson, Supporting Sander C. Perle Petition for Rulemaking PRM 20-25, Re Requirements That Dosimetry Used as Primary Dosimeter Shall Be Accredited NRC-02-0068, Comment of Norman K. Peterson Re Response to Requests for Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on TS Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Mode Change Limitations Using Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process2002-09-0404 September 2002 Comment of Norman K. Peterson Re Response to Requests for Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on TS Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Mode Change Limitations Using Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process 2013-12-21
[Table view] |
Text
1 Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:54 AM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource
Subject:
FW: NRC proposal for Nuclear waste in fuel pools DOCKETED BY USNRC-OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: PR-51 FRN#: 78FR56775 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2012-0246 SECY DOCKET DATE: 12/2/13 TITLE: Waste Confidence-Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel COMMENT#: 00306
From: Chuck Bagwell [mailto:mrcdb@charter.net
] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:20 PM To: RulemakingComments Resource
Subject:
NRC proposal for Nuclear waste in fuel pools Hello, My name is Charles Bagwell, from Erie, MI. I am a retired Nuclea r Engineer. I operated DTE Energy's fossil and nuclear plants for 35 years.
I am opposed to storing used radioactive fuel rods in a pool of water 100 feet above ground level. The imagination runs wild when considering all the bad things that could happen to such a massive objet that high up on a manm ade structure.
I am a proponent of destroying the nuclear waste by heating it to a high tem perature, which at the same time can produce electricity for the grid.
I am asking the NRC to team up with the DOE, and Congress to pass legislation that would require all nuclear electric utilities in the Country to start destroying their waste within 5 years, and to have the fuel pools empty of all waste within 10 years.
How do you destroy the waste? One proposal calls for moving the fuel rod bundles into onsite Storage Casks (SC) after five years of cooling in the pool.
Then, the SC would be moved to a processing r oom where the Uranium f uel pellets are removed from the zirconium storage tubes.
The pellets are fed through a gri nder and turned to a powder. The powder is mixed with a Lithium fluoride salt mixt ure (LF) The LF is then pumped into a Thorium Molten Salt Power Cell, known in the industry as a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)
I propose that Fermi 1, located in Monroe, Michigan, be used as a test site to destroy all the waste stored at the Fermi 2 Po wer Plant, right next door.
2 I've had a brief discussion with DTE Energy representat ives concerning this proposal. They thought it was feasible but they could not act because NRC regulations was a road block to even studying the matter.
I am asking the NRC to reform regulations and to become a proponent to recycling our nuclear waste from long term to short term half-life's. (<800 years)
See my website for a primer on LFTRs.
Thank you,
Charles D. Bagwell
11367 Strasburg Rd.
Erie, MI 48133
Cell 734-856-6354 www.zerwellenergy.com mrcdb@charter.net
Hearing Identifier: Secy_RuleMaking_comments_Public Email Number: 321 Mail Envelope Properties (377CB97DD54F0F4FAAC7E9FD88BCA6D001386AB8BCC9)
Subject:
FW: NRC proposal for Nuclear waste in fuel pools Sent Date: 12/2/2013 9:53:32 AM Received Date: 12/2/2013 9:53:36 AM From: RulemakingComments Resource Created By: RulemakingComments.Resource@nrc.gov Recipients: "Rulemaking1CEm Resource" <Rulemaking1CEm.Resource@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None
Post Office: HQCLSTR01.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2624 12/2/2013 9:53:36 AM
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: