ML18311A312
| ML18311A312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 11/07/2018 |
| From: | Barnett M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 83FR44922 00100, NRC-2016-0231 | |
| Download: ML18311A312 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 11/7/18 3:16 PM Received: November 07, 2018 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. 1k2-96f6-qfhi Comments Due: November 19, 2018 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2016-0231 Waste Control Specialists LLC's Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project Comment On: NRC-2016-0231-0220 Interim Storage Partners LLCs Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Document: NRC-2016-0231-DRAFT-0253 Comment on FR Doc # 2018-22810 Submitter Information Name: Mike Anonymous General Comment I am opposed to the storage of high level nuclear waste in West Texas or Eastern New Mexico. I do not believe it will be safely stored nor properly transported to and from the temporary resting places outlined. We were told the Andrews County site would never be asked to store more than the low level waste considered at that point. I own property in less than a fifty mile radius of the Andrews County site and have always opposed its location there. I manage property half that distance away and that ownership feels the same way that I feel about opposing the storage of high level nuclear waste. We are told it is safe and believe that is an assumption and not fact. We are told transportation is safe to and from the site from accidental contamination from the waste but I believe that is also wrong. We have many truck and train wrecks a year that could potentially include the containers of nuclear waste. Who would determine if a container is damaged? Will the public be informed of such a breach. Would the radius of exposure be evacuated and all commerce in such radius of exposure be shut down during an investigation? If this material is safe why is it emitting heat from its containers. If it is indeed safe and relatively inert then why must it be moved at all. Why must West Texas be the keeper of the waste when we did not benifit from the energy generated? Why cant it stay where it is now and not take a chance on transporting it to a temporary storage when it needs to go one time to its final resting place. I would also resist the Andrews site being declared a final storage location. Thank you! Mike Barnett.
SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD= Antoinette Walker-Smith, James Park, Cinthya Cuevas Roman, Jenny Weil COMMENT (100)
PUBLICATION DATE:
9/4/2018 CITATION 83 FR 44922