ML18218A161
| ML18218A161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 07/30/2018 |
| From: | - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch |
| References | |
| 83FR13802 00259, NRC-2018-0052 | |
| Download: ML18218A161 (1) | |
Text
I PUBLIC SUBMISSION Docket: NRC-2018-0052 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-0258 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-10418 Submitter Information Name: Anonymous Anonymous General Comment As of: 8/1/18 9:57 AM Received: July 30, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lk2-94ko-ciiy Comments Due: July 30, 2018 Submission Type: Web SUNS! Review Complete Template:= ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD= Antoinette Walker-Smith, Jill Caverly (JSCl)
COMMENT (259)
PUBLICATION DATE: 3/30/2018 CITATION# 83 FR 13802 I am opposed to the Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project. I am not convinced that it is safe, <l;_nd believe that it would be a continuation of a baci legacy.
I have doubts that as to whether or not the proposed site of the project (and the nearby WIPP) are on an unstable karst field.
I do not like the inconsistent message that it is only an interim measure. From Holtec stating variously that it will only be used for a few decades, the facility being designed for 100 years of service, or 200-3 00 years, it seems as trustworthy as an argument from the Deep Borehole Field Test Project proposed in Quay and Otero Counties where the DOE insisted that just because they were testing if it was suitable, it didnt mean they were actually planning on using the areas to store hot nuclear waste. The plans were opposed by those communities. Nuclear waste is projected to expand in the future. The flimsy argument that this cite is meant to be only a temporary storage site mitigates nothing.
The fact that New Mexico has been a site for nuclear development and storage does not make it safe, considering the track records _of the entities involved. LANL does not have a good track record, and neither does the WIPP, for example. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission in particular does not have a good track record. Although I do not live in Lea county, I do live in another city in New Mexico where the waste will be transported through. Although I do care about the risks posed to myself, I do also care about the risks posed to those closer to the proposed inten_sified epicenter.
I am not happy with the tum that New Mexico history - and the history of the Southwest in general - has taken. This place isnt a wasteland.