ML18033A603

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:32, 18 May 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comment (64) of Edward Hopkins Regarding Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities
ML18033A603
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre  Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 01/02/2018
From: Hopkins E
- No Known Affiliation
To:
Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
82FR52944 00064, NRC-2017-0211
Download: ML18033A603 (2)


Text

As of: 1/9/18 9:56 AM Received: January 02, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Page 1 of2 , PUBLIC SUBMISSION Tracking No. lk2-90pf-gtgt Comments Due: January 02, 2018 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2017-0211 Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities Comment On: NRC-2017-0211-0001 Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Facilities; Request for Comment on Draft NUREG Document: NRC-2017-0211-DRAFT-0065 Comment on FR Doc# 2017-24734 I. ---S.ubmitter Information ~* fJ. FR 5J Cfl/1/ Name: Edward Hopkins Address: 4978 Niagara Ave #9

  • San Diego, CA, 92107 Email: edwardehopkins@yahoo.com 11 /1,1" /tf(0/7 SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 . Add= J~~~m,#t C..Y<s 5.J **---*---------------**------------------*-**--*--------~--------*-*--*--*-~--------------~--*-----*----' General Comment As a Dartmoth College trained scientist and engineer with 20 years of experience I am completely shocked by the decision to use light walled steel cases in such close vicinity to salt water which degrades metal at a very fast rate, not. to mention the earthquake and tsunami risk. Clearly the Yucca Mountain project would have been the most intelligent long term storage option and it is unfortunate that bipartisan bickering has destroyed a national resource. The danger with this project is not only the risk of a radiation leak that could affect tens of millions if Southern California residents, but that it also will set legal precedence for all other reactor waste storage sites across the nation. https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectld=0900006482d90853&format=xml&showorig=false 01/09/2018 Page 2 of2 This is a poorly planned project that does not even meet minimum military standards even though it is on leased Navy property, and is a political boondoggle that will continue to significantly degrade the reputation of anyone who chooses to fight for it until some reasonable and intelligent optJon is at least considered. https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectld=0900006482d90853&format=xml&showorig=false 01/09/2018