ML18150A639

Comment (029) from Donna Shanske on the Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

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 SUBMISSIONAs of: 5/30/18 1:43 PMReceived: May 29, 2018Status: Pending_PostTracking No. 1k2-93fe-e75zComments Due: June 05, 2018 Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: NRC-2018-0017-0003Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear FuelDocument: NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776Submitter InformationName: Donna ShanskeAddress: 475 Redwood St., Unit 310San Diego, CA, 92103Email: djshanske@gmail.comGeneral CommentFor 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 San 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?objectId=090000648330a47c&format=xml&showorig=false decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). While Southern California Edison (SCE) is insisting thattheir solution is safe, local watchdog groups are sounding alarms about the canisters that will hold the radioactive fuel, whichhas a half-life of 70,000 years. While the canisters are guaranteed for 25 years, the concrete structures they'll be stored in are only good for 10, and if those structures fail then the guarantee on the cannisters is voided."I realize that nuclear energy was once thought of as a safe alternative to fossil fuels, but it is obvious that the plan was never thoroughly vetted for "what happens" when the nuclear 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 attempt to cool the nuclear waste that was unleashed in an earthquake years ago. I suggest that your Commission seriously address this issue and come up with a workable plan to store ALL nuclear waste from nuclear power plants in a safe, inert, stable environment - if there is such a place on our planet....and then DISCONTINUE using all nuclear power plants and switch to renewable energies for a safer future for mankind. Thank you.Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648330a47c&format=xml&showorig=false PUBLIC SUBMISSIONAs of: 5/30/18 1:43 PMReceived: May 29, 2018Status: Pending_PostTracking No. 1k2-93fe-e75zComments Due: June 05, 2018 Submission Type: WebDocket: NRC-2018-0017Storing Spent Nuclear Fuel WasteComment On: NRC-2018-0017-0003Requirements for the Indefinite Storage of Spent Nuclear FuelDocument: NRC-2018-0017-DRAFT-0032Comment on FR Doc # 2018-05776Submitter InformationName: Donna ShanskeAddress: 475 Redwood St., Unit 310San Diego, CA, 92103Email: djshanske@gmail.comGeneral CommentFor 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 San 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?objectId=090000648330a47c&format=xml&showorig=false decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). While Southern California Edison (SCE) is insisting thattheir solution is safe, local watchdog groups are sounding alarms about the canisters that will hold the radioactive fuel, whichhas a half-life of 70,000 years. While the canisters are guaranteed for 25 years, the concrete structures they'll be stored in are only good for 10, and if those structures fail then the guarantee on the cannisters is voided."I realize that nuclear energy was once thought of as a safe alternative to fossil fuels, but it is obvious that the plan was never thoroughly vetted for "what happens" when the nuclear 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 attempt to cool the nuclear waste that was unleashed in an earthquake years ago. I suggest that your Commission seriously address this issue and come up with a workable plan to store ALL nuclear waste from nuclear power plants in a safe, inert, stable environment - if there is such a place on our planet....and then DISCONTINUE using all nuclear power plants and switch to renewable energies for a safer future for mankind. Thank you.Page 2 of 205/30/2018https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648330a47c&format=xml&showorig=false