ML18150A639: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: | WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: | ||
NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document: | NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document: | ||
NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: Donna Shanske Address: | NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: Donna Shanske Address: 475 Redwood St., Unit 310 San Diego, CA, 92103 Email: djshanske@gmail.com General Comment For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:I am a long-time San Diego resident who is aware of the proposed indefinite Storage of Spent NuclearFuel from the decommissioned Sa n Onofre Nuclear Power Plant - with waste to remain at the San Onofre site. It does not make any sense to "sequester" nuclear waste in canisters with a life of 25 - 40 years when the half life of some of the radioactive waste is up to 70,000 years....then another 70,000 years for a 1/2 life reduction again, and on and on. | ||
475 Redwood St., Unit 310 San Diego, CA, 92103 Email: djshanske@gmail.com General Comment For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:I am a long-time San Diego resident who is aware of the proposed indefinite Storage of Spent NuclearFuel from the decommissioned Sa n Onofre Nuclear Power Plant - with waste to remain at the San Onofre site. It does not make any sense to "sequester" nuclear waste in canisters with a life of 25 - 40 years when the half life of some of the radioactive waste is up to 70,000 years....then another 70,000 years for a 1/2 life reduction again, and on and on. | |||
The following statement is from the World Surf League who has more specifics about this issue: | The following statement is from the World Surf League who has more specifics about this issue: | ||
| Line 46: | Line 45: | ||
WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: | WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: | ||
NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document: | NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document: | ||
NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: Donna Shanske Address: | NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: Donna Shanske Address: 475 Redwood St., Unit 310 San Diego, CA, 92103 Email: djshanske@gmail.com General Comment For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:I am a long-time San Diego resident who is aware of the proposed indefinite Storage of Spent NuclearFuel from the decommissioned Sa n Onofre Nuclear Power Plant - with waste to remain at the San Onofre site. It does not make any sense to "sequester" nuclear waste in canisters with a life of 25 - 40 years when the half life of some of the radioactive waste is up to 70,000 years....then another 70,000 years for a 1/2 life reduction again, and on and on. | ||
475 Redwood St., Unit 310 San Diego, CA, 92103 Email: djshanske@gmail.com General Comment For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:I am a long-time San Diego resident who is aware of the proposed indefinite Storage of Spent NuclearFuel from the decommissioned Sa n Onofre Nuclear Power Plant - with waste to remain at the San Onofre site. It does not make any sense to "sequester" nuclear waste in canisters with a life of 25 - 40 years when the half life of some of the radioactive waste is up to 70,000 years....then another 70,000 years for a 1/2 life reduction again, and on and on. | |||
The following statement is from the World Surf League who has more specifics about this issue: | The following statement is from the World Surf League who has more specifics about this issue: | ||
Revision as of 21:47, 5 July 2018
| ML18150A639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/2018 |
| From: | Shanske D - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY/RAS | |
| References | |
| 83FR12504 00029, NRC-2018-0017, PRM-72-8 | |
| Download: ML18150A639 (2) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/30/18 1:43 PM Received:
May 29, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.
1k2-93fe-e75z Comments Due:
June 05, 2018
Submission Type:
WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On:
NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document:
NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: Donna Shanske Address: 475 Redwood St., Unit 310 San Diego, CA, 92103 Email: djshanske@gmail.com General Comment For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:I am a long-time San Diego resident who is aware of the proposed indefinite Storage of Spent NuclearFuel from the decommissioned Sa n Onofre Nuclear Power Plant - with waste to remain at the San Onofre site. It does not make any sense to "sequester" nuclear waste in canisters with a life of 25 - 40 years when the half life of some of the radioactive waste is up to 70,000 years....then another 70,000 years for a 1/2 life reduction again, and on and on.
The following statement is from the World Surf League who has more specifics about this issue:
"There's a plan to bury over 3.5 million pounds of radioactive waste (spent fuel) less than 200 yards from the shoreline at the Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=090000648330a47 c&format=xml&showorig=false decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Gene rating Station (SONGS). While Southern California Edison (SCE) is insisting that their solution is safe, local watc hdog groups are sounding alarms about the canisters that will hold the radioactive fuel, which has a half-life of 70,000 years. While the canisters are gua ranteed for 25 years, the concrete structures they'll be stored in are only good for 10, an d if those structures fail then the guarantee on th e cannisters is voided."I realize that nuclear energy was once thought of as a safe altern ative to fossil fuels, but it is obvious that the plan was never
thoroughly vetted for "wha t happens" when the nu clear plant fails to function AND where do you store its waste for the
thousands of years it takes for it to disintegrate This is a serious national problem - think Fukushima - where the Japanese
continue on a daily basis to at tempt to cool the nuclear wast e that was unleashed in an earthquake years ago. I suggest that
your Commission seriously address this issue and come up with a workab le plan to store ALL nuclear waste from nuclear power plants in a safe, inert, stable environmen t - if there is such a place on our planet....and then DISCONTINUE using all nuclear power plants and switch to renewable ener gies for a safer future for mankind. Thank you.Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=090000648330a47 c&format=xml&showorig=false PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/30/18 1:43 PM Received:
May 29, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No.
1k2-93fe-e75z Comments Due:
June 05, 2018
Submission Type:
WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017 Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On:
NRC-2018-0017-0003 Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Document:
NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776 Submitter Information Name: Donna Shanske Address: 475 Redwood St., Unit 310 San Diego, CA, 92103 Email: djshanske@gmail.com General Comment For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:I am a long-time San Diego resident who is aware of the proposed indefinite Storage of Spent NuclearFuel from the decommissioned Sa n Onofre Nuclear Power Plant - with waste to remain at the San Onofre site. It does not make any sense to "sequester" nuclear waste in canisters with a life of 25 - 40 years when the half life of some of the radioactive waste is up to 70,000 years....then another 70,000 years for a 1/2 life reduction again, and on and on.
The following statement is from the World Surf League who has more specifics about this issue:
"There's a plan to bury over 3.5 million pounds of radioactive waste (spent fuel) less than 200 yards from the shoreline at the Page 1 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=090000648330a47 c&format=xml&showorig=false decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Gene rating Station (SONGS). While Southern California Edison (SCE) is insisting that their solution is safe, local watc hdog groups are sounding alarms about the canisters that will hold the radioactive fuel, which has a half-life of 70,000 years. While the canisters are gua ranteed for 25 years, the concrete structures they'll be stored in are only good for 10, an d if those structures fail then the guarantee on th e cannisters is voided."I realize that nuclear energy was once thought of as a safe altern ative to fossil fuels, but it is obvious that the plan was never
thoroughly vetted for "wha t happens" when the nu clear plant fails to function AND where do you store its waste for the
thousands of years it takes for it to disintegrate This is a serious national problem - think Fukushima - where the Japanese
continue on a daily basis to at tempt to cool the nuclear wast e that was unleashed in an earthquake years ago. I suggest that
your Commission seriously address this issue and come up with a workab le plan to store ALL nuclear waste from nuclear power plants in a safe, inert, stable environmen t - if there is such a place on our planet....and then DISCONTINUE using all nuclear power plants and switch to renewable ener gies for a safer future for mankind. Thank you.Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/
fdms/getcontent?object Id=090000648330a47 c&format=xml&showorig=false