ML18205A378
| ML18205A378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 07/20/2018 |
| From: | Knipp D - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch |
| References | |
| 83FR13802 00215, NRC-2018-0052 | |
| Download: ML18205A378 (2) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION Docket: NRC-2018-0052 SUNS! Review Complete Template= ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD= Antoinette Walker-Smith, Jill Caverly (JSCl)
COMMENT {215)
PUBLICATION DATE:
3/30/2018 CITATION# 83FR 13802 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project Comment On: NRC-2018-0052-0058 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project
\\
Document: NRC-2018-0052-DRAFT-0215 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-10418 Submitter Information N_ame: Donna Knipp General Comment Mobile Chernobyl shipping risks As of: 7/20/18 2:36 PM Received: July 20, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking* No. 1 k2-94do-4aoq Comments Due: July 30, 2018 Submission Type: Web Southeast New Mexico, near the Texas border, has the dubious distinction that every single train car load of high-level radioactive waste will pass through on its way into (and, if it ever leaves, out of}Holtec International/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance (ELEA).
But transport impacts, to eventually import more irradiated nuclear fuel than currently exists in the U.S. into s.e. NM, will be felt nationwide. Transporting 100,000 metric tons, or more, of irradiated nuclear fuel to NM makes this proposal even bigger than the highly controversial, unacceptable Yucca Mountain, Nevada permanent burial dump scheme, in terms of transport impacts (limited to 70,000 metric tons under current law). In that sense, when it comes to radioactive waste transportation risks, we all live in New Mexico.
For this reason, only four NRC public comment meetings (three in s.e. NM, and one at the agencys HQ near Washington, D.C.), are woefully inadequate. Millions of Americans would be put at risk by tlie~e highly radioactive, irradiated nuclear fuel shipments by train, truck, and/or barge.
(See, for example, the national transport impacts.associated with the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada permanent burial dump for highly radioactive waste:
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects - Cities Potentially Affected by Shipments to Yucca Mountain (pdf-2.45M)
< http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news201 7 /pdf/Cities _ Affected. pdf>
The farther from the targeted destinations (Yucca Mountain, NV and s.e. NM), the more identical the routes would be for shipments. The closer to the targeted dump-sites the shipments came, the more the NV and NM routes would diverge. But as you can see, shipments to NM, just like shipments to NV, would impact most states.
For this reason, NRC should be holding environmental scoping public comment meetings across the country, not just in s.e. NM (and a single national meeting at the agencys HQ in Rockville~ MD). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), during its Yucca Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) public comment period many years ago, initially planned a dozen meetings nationwide. Under public pressure, DOE was forced to double the number of such meetings, in communities impacted elsewhere across the U.S., as well.
But a de facto permanent surface storage parking lot dump at Holtec/ELEA in s.e. NM would only increase safety risks. It would not decrease them. It would multiply transport risks, as it would only be temporary (supposedly, even if decades, or centuries, or more, can be called temporary!). All that highly radioactive waste would have to move again, to a permanent burial site (yet to be identified thats a big IF! Yucca is NOT suitable!). And that could be back in the same direction from which it came in the first place, meaning transport corridor communities could see these high risks coming and going!