ML18094A785
| ML18094A785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/2018 |
| From: | Berg K - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 83FR12504 00003, NRC-2018-0017 | |
| Download: ML18094A785 (2) | |
Text
From:
Ken Berg To:
RulemakingComments Resource Cc:
"Ray Lutz"
Subject:
[External_Sender] FW: [ShutSanOnofre] Comment period is now open on our NRC "HELMS" petition. Please comment!
Date:
Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:37:15 PM Attachments:
180403holtec.pdf
Dear NRC:
The SONGS fiasco is virtually out of control. The petition seeks to correct an important issue for long-term surface storage and I agree with it.
Ken Berg 22701 Lajares Mission Viejo, CA (949) 830 6888 III. The Petition The petitioners are requesting that the NRC revise part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) regarding spent nuclear fuel (SNF) stored in independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) at nuclear power stations. The petitioners are concerned that there is a mismatch between the NRC's 10 CFR part 72 regulations that define requirements for ISFSIs and the current situation, which the petitioners assert is that surface storage of spent nuclear fuel will continue indefinitely. The petitioners observe that 10 CFR part 72 was initially developed at a time when a repository was anticipated to be available in 1998 and, therefore, this PRM would address concerns with a much longer time frame for surface storage. The petitioners make 14 contentions that propose specific revisions to 10 CFR part 72 that would address issues concerning the indefinite surface storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry cask storage systems. In particular, the petitioners request that 10 CFR part 72 be revised to require: a 1,000 year design life goal for spent nuclear storage systems; estimates for the operating costs over the design life; determination of the safety margins over the design life; and time limited aging analyses demonstrating that structures, systems, and components important to safety will continue to perform for the design life. The petition may be found in ADAMS at Accession No. ML18022B207.
Background...
Original Message-----
From: Ken Berg [1]
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 12:09 PM To: Ken Berg
Subject:
FW: [ShutSanOnofre] Comment period is now open on our NRC "HELMS" petition. Please comment!
Ray:
I have no objection to the petition but am concerned that there are other issues to be considered, and that the CPUC Investigation of the SONGS proceedings on May 2 should lead to a rejection of all proposed settlements, allowing time for sober reflection on all of the minutiae of all of the issues by a panel of citizens and authorities having jurisdiction over the SONGS fiasco.
Because:
3 PRM-72-8 83 FR 12504
SCE rates (more than.20 per kwh) are double what I pay in Arizona (less than.10 per kwh).
I want to reduce the rates and protect them from further increase.
SCE, CPUC et al are using ratepayers as a cash-cow to be milked to suit the whims of the authorities.
We should not accept the 2B+ price for MHI and SCE failures.
CEP, ORA and similar ratepayer advocates are not protecting us.
DoE has created a danger by failing their mandate for nuclear wastes affecting residents and should pay all the costs for handling, storage and disposal for SONGS. It's their responsibility.
SCE rights to on site storage are compromised by Navy title to property.
DoE should pay Navy a million dollars a month to encourage DoE to deal with active nuclear materials and apparatus, while securing disposal sites.
Quickly!
To remove dangers to and fears of residents. The lies, cheating, incompetence etc. demonstrated has demolished the credibility of any of the authorities dealing with SONGS. This has become a public issue risking safety, health, security and costs by a bloated and uncaring bureaucracy.
The public has no way to assess the risk, nor the means for eliminating the risk!!!
NRC has said they not concerned with our costs, only safety technology. I claimed that costs and safety are intimately interrelated.
NRC should be pro-active in safety that brings no costs to ratepayers!
Welded pipe cannot provide a safe repository for nuclear wastes.
Many only know of 'spent' fuel... which is really hot fuel bundles removed from reactors.
One wonders what happens to the rest of the plant. There's a contractor at work at the plant. One wonders what his contract calls for. Does SCE think they can foist off extra risk and cost onto us ratepayers? It appears that they think so little of us, that they can do what they want and that we will accept risks and costs. We need a chance to get their attention. Rejecting the proposed settlements will be a start.
Original Message-----
From: Shutsanonofre [2] On Behalf Of Ray Lutz Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2018 10:34 PM To: shutsanonofre@citizensoversight.org
Subject:
[ShutSanOnofre] Comment period is now open on our NRC "HELMS" petition. Please comment!
Comment period is now open on our NRC "HELMS" petition. Please comment!
The following link should be clickable. Otherwise, copy and paste into a browser "Location" field.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2018-0017-0003 If you believe the current canisters (with design life of 40-years) are too thin and temporary for long-term use
("indefinite" is the term used by the NRC) then this is the opportunity to promote any alternative you feel is appropriate, even if it is not the two-layer design suggested in the HELMS document. This is a great opportunity to go on the official record. Don't let history pass you by!
--Ray Lutz Shutsanonofre mailing list Shutsanonofre@citizensoversight.org http://lists.citizensoversight.org/mailman/listinfo/shutsanonofre