ML14252A177: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 14: Line 14:
| page count = 1
| page count = 1
}}
}}
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:P2oP 1 nf 1K,,/,? 7' of: September 03, 2014Received: August 29, 2014Status: Pending_PostTracking No. ljy-8e21-26y7Comments Due: August 29, 2014Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2014-0109 ,License Renewal Application; Fermi 2Comment On: NRC-2014-0109-0003DTE Electric Co., Fermi 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem. 6iitDocument: NRC-2014-0109-DRAFT-0017 -Comment on FR Doc # 2014-15281Submitter InformationName: Robert SimpsonGeneral CommentIt is reasonable to estimate that, during the 20-year License Renewal period, Fermi, Unit 2 would generate anamount of spent fuel from normal operations equal to about fifty percent (50%) of that which it produced duringthe original 40-year Operating License period. At the same time, the current "structured coordination" betweenthe Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the NRC appears to be heading towards potentially indefinite "continuedstorage" of spent fuel with no technical specifications in place, now or for the foreseeable future. This is theofficial language of those involved with trying to get Fermi closed. It means, in plain language: "We still don'thave any solution for the waste!" So why do we continue to produce it? Somebody is making a profit on it and Iguess that's reason enough. If we could start up an atomic warhead plant, it would require only two things tomake it a reality. Somebody to make a profit and the creation of some jobs. End of story.SUNSI Review CompleteTemplate = ADM -013E-RIDS= ADM-03Add= /.P61ý__I--C5 a&https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=0900006481850f6 1 &for... 09/03/2014}}

Revision as of 19:42, 26 June 2018

Comment(00023) of Robert Simpson on DTE Electric Co., Fermi 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
ML14252A177
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/29/2014
From: Simpson R
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
79FR36837 00023, NRC-2014-0109
Download: ML14252A177 (1)


Text

P2oP 1 nf 1K,,/,? 7' of: September 03, 2014Received: August 29, 2014Status: Pending_PostTracking No. ljy-8e21-26y7Comments Due: August 29, 2014Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2014-0109 ,License Renewal Application; Fermi 2Comment On: NRC-2014-0109-0003DTE Electric Co., Fermi 2; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statem. 6iitDocument: NRC-2014-0109-DRAFT-0017 -Comment on FR Doc # 2014-15281Submitter InformationName: Robert SimpsonGeneral CommentIt is reasonable to estimate that, during the 20-year License Renewal period, Fermi, Unit 2 would generate anamount of spent fuel from normal operations equal to about fifty percent (50%) of that which it produced duringthe original 40-year Operating License period. At the same time, the current "structured coordination" betweenthe Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the NRC appears to be heading towards potentially indefinite "continuedstorage" of spent fuel with no technical specifications in place, now or for the foreseeable future. This is theofficial language of those involved with trying to get Fermi closed. It means, in plain language: "We still don'thave any solution for the waste!" So why do we continue to produce it? Somebody is making a profit on it and Iguess that's reason enough. If we could start up an atomic warhead plant, it would require only two things tomake it a reality. Somebody to make a profit and the creation of some jobs. End of story.SUNSI Review CompleteTemplate = ADM -013E-RIDS= ADM-03Add= /.P61ý__I--C5 a&https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=0900006481850f6 1 &for... 09/03/2014