ML071780065

Comment (12) of June Cochran Opposing the NRC Staff'S Supplement to the Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Construction and Operation of the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Instal

ML071780065
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/24/2007
From:	Cochran J - No Known Affiliation
To:	Hall J Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
72FR30398 00012
Download: ML071780065 (3)

Text

NRCREP - NP,;C's Response Page 1II

. i RULES ".

From: June Cochran <gradofcal@yahoo.com>

To: <NRCREP@nrc.gov>

Date: Sun, Jun 24, 2007 2:50 PM - U11 2 5 ?U 2 26

Subject:

NRC's Response To James R. Hall, NRCREP@nrc.gov:

I am writing in regards to Docket No. 72-26 with comments on the NRC Staff's Supplement to the Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Construction and Operation of the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. This document was written in response to the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC to address the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the Diablo Canyon dry cask storage facility. I am outraged by the simplistic and inadequate assessment.

0 The NRC has done a very poor job of evaluating the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the Diablo Canyon facility. The EA distorts and minimizes the environmental impacts of attacks on the facility by using hidden and unjustified assumptions.

The EA rules out credible threat scenarios that could cause significant environmental damage by contaminating the environment. The EA creates the appearance of compliance with NEPA's requirements to consider reasonably foreseeable catastrophic impacts even if their probability is low by claiming to consider all "plausible" attack scenarios. But the EA clearly fails to consider credible scenarios that could cause significant environmental damage. For instance, the EA fails to consider attack scenarios in which penetration of a spent-fuel canister is accompanied by the use of an incendiary device to ignite the zirconium cladding of the spent fuel. It should include a detailed description of a wide range of potential attack scenarios and in which several canisters could be affected. These details could be available to persons cleared to receive such information.

The EA also fails to identify the key documents on which it relies, thus making it impossible for any party to verify the appropriateness of its reliance on those documents. In violation of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the EA fails to identify the scientific and other sources it relies on for its conclusion that the impacts of attacks on the Diablo Canyon facility pose no significant impact.

Additionally, CEQ regulation requires an agency to "identify any methodologies used" in its environmental

/9;) Al s 63-kH)

rjNRCREP - NF3C's Response Page 2 !1 NRCREP - N~3C's Response Page 2~J analysis. In violation of this requirement, the EA fails to provide a clear description of the NRC's process for identifying plausible or credible attack scenarios and assessing their consequences to determine whether they are significant. The EA does not describe any analysis that it did for the specific purpose of complying with NEPA. Instead, it describes an analysis that apparently took place in 2002, long before the Ninth Circuit's decision, and that apparently was based on compliance with NRC's AEA-based security requirements. The EA fails to clearly establish that the 2002 analysis was based on reasonable foreseeability of impacts under NEPA.

In considering the consequences of potential releases of radioactive material, the NRC has employed only one indicator, namely "the potential for early fatalities." To exclude consequences other than early fatalities is absurd. Land contamination is a very serious impact that can cause delayed fatalities, illness, and billions of dollars in expenses of relocation and lost income.

The EA for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage facility completely fails to demonstrate the NRC made a "fully informed and well-considered" determination of no significant impacts.

Sincerely, June Cochran 2622 Barcelona Shell Beach, CA 93449 Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers -

Check it out.

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

Ic:\tPmp\GWJ00009.TMP Page lii Ic:\temc~AGW}0OOO9.TMP Page 1 1 I

Mail Envelope Properties (467EBCEA.836 :13 : 22582)

Subject:

NRC's Response Creation Date Sun, Jun 24, 2007 2:49 PM From: June Cochran <gradofcal@yahoo.com>

Created By: gradofcal @yahoo.com Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPOO1 .HQGWDO01 NRCREP Post Office Route TWGWPO01 .HQGWDO01 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3867 Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:49 PM Mime.822 5414 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled