ML18066A552: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 2 | | page count = 2 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:Blount, Barbara | |||
==Subject:== | |||
FW: Docket ID NRC-2017-0211 Attachments: | |||
Comments to NUREG-2215Gilmore2018-0l-02.pdf | |||
==Subject:== | |||
[External_Sender] | |||
Docket ID NRC-2017-0211 | |||
==Dear Ms. Gallagher:== | |||
' First, let me thank you for taking comments regarding this Docket number. I am among thousands who are asking why the thin canisters were approved for San Onofre instead of the thick casks that are so much more reliable. | |||
Please, please reconsider this decision for the sake of all of us and our environment for eons to come. The canisters that were approved cannot .be monitored and are entirely too thin to prevent a disaster. | |||
I have attached a document from SanOnofreSafety.org which I wholeheartedly endorse. If you havep't read Donna Gilmore's comment regarding this, please do ... she's a brilliant woman who is always on target -asking the hard questions that so far haven't been addressed to anyone's satisfaction. | |||
Hopefully submitted, Diane Hennessy 111 A venida Buena Ventura San Clemente, CA 92672 949-702-1936 1 \ /. SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= ~S';,c.+A | |||
(:J'~ | |||
Date: January 2, 2018 Comments to NRC Docket ID NRC-2017-0211, NUREG-2215 NRC Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities Draft, November 2017 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1731/ML17310A693.pdf The NRC cannot meet its mission to "ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment" if it continues to allow thin-wall welded canisters they admit are vulnerable to cracks, that cannot be fully inspected (inside or out), and cannot be repaired, maintained and monitored to prevent (not just detect) radiological leaks. There is no adequate or proven detailed plan required to address major radiological leaks, or to address on-site replacement of containers. | |||
Seismic requirements for partial cracks is not addressed. | |||
See below webpage for details on the Holtec UMAX System planned for San Onofre and why this is an example of a system with major problems that should not be approved. | |||
https://sanonofresafety.org/holtec-hi-storm-umax-nuclear-waste-dry-storage-system/ | |||
Each canister contains about as much or more lethal Cesium-137 as released from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, yet the NRC knows the boron metal in the canisters will not prevent the fuel from going critical if exposed to non-borated water from through wall cracks (in storage or transport). | |||
NUREG-2215 states it requires "conservative assumptions", "inspections", and admits to many "unknowns". | |||
NUREG-2215 is not "conservative", does not require adequate "inspections", and does not resolve the many "unknowns" that would be eliminated if the NRC mandated and enforced critical safety requirements to inspect, monitor, maintain and repair (both inside and out) to PREVENT leaks. Proven dry storage technology exists that meets critical basic safety requirements we expect in a car. Does the NRC consider thin-wall canisters "conservative assumptions" compared to thick-wall casks? If so, why? Why does the NRC allow containers that do not meet these basic critical safety requirements? | |||
Respectfully, Donna Gilmore, SanOnofreSafety.org donnagilmore@gmail.com 949-204-7794 Basic Safety Requirements Thick walls Won't crack. Ability to inspect inside & out, maintain, repair (fuel baskets, other parts) \, ' Monitor to fix problems before leaks ASME container certification Defense in depth (redundancy) | |||
Stored in concrete building Gamma & neutron protection TransportablE:? | |||
Proven technology Thin-wall canisters Thick-wall casks No. Only 1/2 to 5/8th of an inch Yes. 10 to 19.75 inches No Yes No Yes No Yes No \ Yes No Yes No Yes Requires vented concrete overpack Yes No transport with cracks. 10 CFR § Yes 71.85 No. Conditions unknown. Most in Yes. Inspected and used use less than 15 yrs, a few 30 yrs. over 40 years}} | |||
Latest revision as of 02:14, 6 July 2018
| ML18066A552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/2018 |
| From: | Hennessy D - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Carol Gallagher Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch |
| References | |
| 82FR52944 00154, NRC-2017-0211 | |
| Download: ML18066A552 (2) | |
Text
Blount, Barbara
Subject:
FW: Docket ID NRC-2017-0211 Attachments:
Comments to NUREG-2215Gilmore2018-0l-02.pdf
Subject:
[External_Sender]
Docket ID NRC-2017-0211
Dear Ms. Gallagher:
' First, let me thank you for taking comments regarding this Docket number. I am among thousands who are asking why the thin canisters were approved for San Onofre instead of the thick casks that are so much more reliable.
Please, please reconsider this decision for the sake of all of us and our environment for eons to come. The canisters that were approved cannot .be monitored and are entirely too thin to prevent a disaster.
I have attached a document from SanOnofreSafety.org which I wholeheartedly endorse. If you havep't read Donna Gilmore's comment regarding this, please do ... she's a brilliant woman who is always on target -asking the hard questions that so far haven't been addressed to anyone's satisfaction.
Hopefully submitted, Diane Hennessy 111 A venida Buena Ventura San Clemente, CA 92672 949-702-1936 1 \ /. SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 Add= ~S';,c.+A
(:J'~
Date: January 2, 2018 Comments to NRC Docket ID NRC-2017-0211, NUREG-2215 NRC Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities Draft, November 2017 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1731/ML17310A693.pdf The NRC cannot meet its mission to "ensure adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment" if it continues to allow thin-wall welded canisters they admit are vulnerable to cracks, that cannot be fully inspected (inside or out), and cannot be repaired, maintained and monitored to prevent (not just detect) radiological leaks. There is no adequate or proven detailed plan required to address major radiological leaks, or to address on-site replacement of containers.
Seismic requirements for partial cracks is not addressed.
See below webpage for details on the Holtec UMAX System planned for San Onofre and why this is an example of a system with major problems that should not be approved.
https://sanonofresafety.org/holtec-hi-storm-umax-nuclear-waste-dry-storage-system/
Each canister contains about as much or more lethal Cesium-137 as released from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, yet the NRC knows the boron metal in the canisters will not prevent the fuel from going critical if exposed to non-borated water from through wall cracks (in storage or transport).
NUREG-2215 states it requires "conservative assumptions", "inspections", and admits to many "unknowns".
NUREG-2215 is not "conservative", does not require adequate "inspections", and does not resolve the many "unknowns" that would be eliminated if the NRC mandated and enforced critical safety requirements to inspect, monitor, maintain and repair (both inside and out) to PREVENT leaks. Proven dry storage technology exists that meets critical basic safety requirements we expect in a car. Does the NRC consider thin-wall canisters "conservative assumptions" compared to thick-wall casks? If so, why? Why does the NRC allow containers that do not meet these basic critical safety requirements?
Respectfully, Donna Gilmore, SanOnofreSafety.org donnagilmore@gmail.com 949-204-7794 Basic Safety Requirements Thick walls Won't crack. Ability to inspect inside & out, maintain, repair (fuel baskets, other parts) \, ' Monitor to fix problems before leaks ASME container certification Defense in depth (redundancy)
Stored in concrete building Gamma & neutron protection TransportablE:?
Proven technology Thin-wall canisters Thick-wall casks No. Only 1/2 to 5/8th of an inch Yes. 10 to 19.75 inches No Yes No Yes No Yes No \ Yes No Yes No Yes Requires vented concrete overpack Yes No transport with cracks. 10 CFR § Yes 71.85 No. Conditions unknown. Most in Yes. Inspected and used use less than 15 yrs, a few 30 yrs. over 40 years