ML19058A580

Comment from John P. Stevens Regarding the Emergency Petition Filed by C-10 on February 13, 2019

ML19058A580
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/26/2019
From:	Stevens J - No Known Affiliation
To:	NRC/SECY
SECY/RAS
References
Download: ML19058A580 (1)

Text

From: John P Stevens To: CHAIRMAN Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Seabrook ageing concrete Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 5:09:48 PM

Dear Chairman Svinicki and NRC Commissioners:

As a neighbor to Seabrook Station nuclear power plant, I am writing to urge you to seriously consider the Emergency Petition filed by the C-10 Research and Education Foundation on February 13, and to take no further action on the requested license amendment or extension until the full resolution of the contentions brought by C-10 relative to the plants degraded concrete.

C-10 has raised serious concerns about the ability of Seabrook's concrete to continue protecting the public, and the inadequacy of the testing and analysis that underpin Seabrook's concrete aging management plans. C-10 is preparing for a hearing granted by NRCs Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, where they will provide the only independent peer review of the concrete testing methodology behind the plants license amendment request, which is based on a completely unprecedented approach to monitoring and managing alkali-silica reaction at a nuclear reactor.

The seriousness of this matter demands more caution, independent review and transparency than it has received. With 11 more years on Seabrooks current operating license, there is time for the NRC to do it right. Please permit the democratic process to proceed. While NRC representatives have stated that C-10 will get their hearing later this year, we urge you to wait on any rulings relative to the plant's license amendment request, or license extension, until C-10's contentions are heard and evaluated by the ASLB.

I feel gravely concerned about the nuclear industry, and how we have been hoodwinked by you and them with facts and costs that grossly underestimate the lifecycle costs, and do not attempt to include the costs of managing the waste from nuclear power plants which is a legacy for thousands of years into the future. Why is this not included in the costings? If it were, nuclear power would never be economical. I would ask that you give serious consideration to true lifecycle costings that include waste management for all the waste materials, some of which is Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,000 years, thats just the beginning of its disintegration. How much money is required to look after storage caskets for hundreds of thousands of years while this stuff decays? By not including these costs, we are deferring these costs of storage to future generations. And then because the government made a promise to provide the nuclear industry with a storage solution by 1998, power plants have been successfully suing the government for not delivering on this promise.

And this is just more money paid by ratepayers and taxpayers. This seems ludicrous. How can we continue to convince ourselves that this is a viable technology? I urge you to bring more common sense and intelligence into these decisions about energy technologies.

On behalf of my family, thank you.

Sincerely, John Stevens Resident

9 Stone House Lane Gloucester MA 01930 15 miles across open water directly to the entrance to Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant