|
---|
Category:Rulemaking-Comment
MONTHYEARNRC-2018-0017, Comment (063) of Patricia Gracian on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel2018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (063) of Patricia Gracian on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18158A2792018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (062) from Jonathan Adler on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18158A2772018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (060) from Marion Sprin on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18158A2762018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (070) from Daniel Dowden on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18158A2702018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (064) from Mary Jo Poole on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3792018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (053) from Doris Pfalmer on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3782018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (052) from Carmela Price on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3742018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (057) from Arturo Torres on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3732018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (056) from Irwin Sprin on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3722018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (055) from Paula Colby on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3712018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (054) from Joel Goldstein on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3622018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (049) from Scott Chamberlin on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3572018-06-0505 June 2018 Comment (044) from Sheryl Arruda on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3682018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (042) of Jo Panitch on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3672018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (041) of Anne Clorite on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3662018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (040) from Susan and David Dearing on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3652018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (039) of Berton Moldow on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3642018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (038) of Laura Lynch on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3562018-06-0404 June 2018 Comment (043) of Mary Steele on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A2992018-06-0101 June 2018 Comment (034) from an Anonymous Individual on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18157A3002018-05-31031 May 2018 Comment (033) from Patricia Borchmann on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18150A6392018-05-29029 May 2018 Comment (029) from Donna Shanske on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18149A6012018-05-25025 May 2018 Comment (019) from Cord Bauer on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18094A7852018-04-0303 April 2018 Comment (003) from Ken Berg on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18100A3522018-04-0202 April 2018 Comment (012) of Steve Schlesinger on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML18094A7732018-04-0202 April 2018 Comment (002) from Ron Rodarte on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML16082A0072016-03-18018 March 2016 Comment (112) of Charles R. Langley on Behalf of Public Watchdogs on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors ML16060A5112016-02-29029 February 2016 Comment (043) of Sara Kaminske on Behalf of Orange County, CA on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors ML16053A4532016-02-0101 February 2016 Comment (036) of Ron Roberts and Dianne Jacob on Behalf of the County of San Diego, CA, Board of Supervisors on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors ML14007A0332013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00868) of Patricia Holloway on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14006A4422013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00845) of G. Korsen on PR-51, Waste Confidence Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14006A4382013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00841) of Bruce Lieberman on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14006A3782013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00835) of Yoko Collin on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14001A0572013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00786) of Alan Korsen on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14001A0052013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00736) of Valerie Burchfield Rhodes on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13365A3372013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00717) of Laurenn Barker on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13360A3582013-12-20020 December 2013 Comment (00685) of Ray Lutz on Behalf of Citizens Oversight, Inc. on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13359A0022013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00648) of Grace Van Thillo on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14002A0042013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00801) of Jim Powers on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14002A0002013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00797) of Kevin Carey on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14001A0372013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00766) of Ed Maher on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14001A0362013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00765) of Juniel Worthington on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML14001A0252013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00754) of Margaret Kuchnia on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13358A4262013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00639) of Kim Stanick on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13358A4252013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00647) of Stephanie Jennings on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13358A4162013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00632) of Christina Imhoof on PR-51, Waste Confidence Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13358A3512013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00615) of John Dolegowski on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13357A8322013-12-19019 December 2013 Comment (00601) of Roger Johnson on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13352A5172013-12-15015 December 2013 Comment (00461) of Kevin Higgins on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ML13336A5512013-11-18018 November 2013 Comment (00269) of Bill Hannaman on PR-51, Waste Confidence - Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel 2018-06-05
[Table view] |
Text
1 Rulemaking1CEm Resource From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 8:15 AM To: Rulemaking1CEm Resource
Subject:
FW: The GEIS report especially with reference to San Onofre DOCKETED BY USNRC-OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY SECY-067 PR#: PR-51 FRN#: 78FR56775 NRC DOCKET#: NRC-2012-0246 SECY DOCKET DATE: 12/19/13 TITLE: Waste Confidence-Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel COMMENT#: 00601
From: r johnson [1]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:54 PM To: CHAIRMAN Resource
Subject:
The GEIS report especially with reference to San Onofre
Dear Dr. Macfarlane,
As a resident of San Clemente, CA, I would like to strongly oppose the GEIS report. Our town shares the same zip code as San Onofre, and now y ou want us to share the nuclear waste, possibly forever. When the plant was built, you promised t hat the waste would never remain here, and now you are reneging on that promise.
There isn't any city or town in Southern California which is a suitable site for a nuclear waste dump, and certainly not ours. San Onofre is situated in an earthquake and tsunami zone in the middle of two large metropolitan areas.
It is an extremely inviting target for terrorists. The waste is stored in an extremely vulnerable location with free public access on all sides: it is a few hundred feet from a public beach and a few hundred feet from an important Interstate Highway.
Nuclear waste has been accumulating here since 1968. We have housed it long enough (about a half-century) and it is outrageous that you want to keep it her e for another 60 years (or 160 or forever). The GEIS report is not a plan. Rather it is an avoidance of responsibility. The NRC logo says "protecting people and the envir onment" but this is a plan to do the opposite. The idea of labeling this time period as "short te rm" and "temporary" is irresponsible.
Since the GEIS report is not a plan but rather a continuation of doing nothing, you need to completely revise it with a serious plan. Here is a suggestion: The government owns millions of acres of land, much of it isolated and remote, much of it on secure military fa cilities. There are many possibilities for temporary storage sites on such remote locations. Sites could be regional or state-specific to avoid federal issues. What is requ ired is only a pad, not an elab orate repository. This would be designated as a temporar y waste storage facility until a pe rmanent repository is opened.
Current nuclear power plants were never designed to be long term (anything over 20 years) waste storage facilities. San Onofre especially is totally unsuitable and it cannot be turned into a long term storage facility just by changing its name.
Moving waste to re mote sites has many powerful advantages: (1) Waste can be removed from tsunami and earthquake prone areas; (2) Waste can be stored far from populati on centers; (3) waste 2 can be stored in secure areas away from public access; (4) waste stored in a remote temporary site would be mostly immune from terror ist threats since terrorists would not be interested in targets far from population zones.
Please rewrite t he plan to say the following: (1) All waste currently in transportable casks should be moved to the designated temporary site within one year. (2) All waste which is safe to remove from pools should be done so immediately with a high-priority accelerated schedule. Once in casks, it should be moved quickly to the temporary storage area. (3) All remaining fuel in the pools should be removed and casked and sent to the site as soon as the fuel is cool enough to place in dry casks. (4) All fuel pools at cl osed plants should be emptied ASAP.
In addition to a real plan like that outlined above, here are some more suggestions:
(1) The plan should specify close cooperation with local cities and towns.
(2) The plan shoul d include Class C or greater waste (rath er than exclude it as the current GEIS plan does).
(3) The plan should be site-specific, not generic.
The failure of the GEIS plan to make important distinctions based on particular situations is particularly troubling. How can the NRC write a report which states that earthquakes, tsunamis, human error, breakdowns, and terrorist vulnerability are trivial issues not worth worrying about?
(4) The plan should be based on science, not on PR considerations. The GEIS report reads like a PR document promoting the nuc lear industry. It minimizes, ignores, dismisses and trivializes true dangers. It grossly overstates safety and expresses blind faith in the most optimistic possibilities.
Its excessive reliance on probabilistic risk analysi s is unwarranted and unprof essional. Everyone knows that risk analysis is heavily flawed and full of questionable assumptions.
(5) The dismissal of terrorist attacks shows that this is not a serious report. Everyone who has read the Sandia reports knows that a truck bomb (o r missile, or high explosives, etc.) outside the perimeter could have disast rous effects on fuel pools. Nuclear power plants were never designed to be fortified against such attacks, and any report wh ich ignores this is a report not to be taken seriously.
Roger Johnson, PhD Professor Emeritus San Clemente, CA Dec. 16, 2013
Hearing Identifier: Secy_RuleMaking_comments_Public Email Number: 626 Mail Envelope Properties (377CB97DD54F0F4FAAC7E9FD88BCA6D0014433C49CE4)
Subject:
FW: The GEIS report especially with reference to San Onofre Sent Date: 12/23/2013 8:14:57 AM Received Date: 12/23/2013 8:15:06 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 5322 12/23/2013 8:15:06 AM
Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: