ML18323A348
| ML18323A348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 10/05/2018 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/FCSS |
| NRC/NMSS/FCSS | |
| References | |
| 83FR44922 | |
| Download: ML18323A348 (3) | |
Text
1 WCS_CISFEISCEm Resource From:
dave mccoy <dave@radfreenm.org>
Sent:
Friday, October 5, 2018 4:30 PM To:
Borges Roman, Jennifer
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket No. 72-1050; NRC-2016-0231 Supplemental Statement Supplemental Statement of Citizen Action New Mexico October 5, 2018 Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov Docket No. 72-1050; NRC-2016-0231 - Environmental Impact Statement Public Scoping Comments about Waste Control Specialists LLCs Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project (CISFSF)
The storage of spent nuclear fuel in the proposed Holtec facility in New Mexico will likely force New Mexico to provide for its permanent disposal. The urgency for permanent disposal will become apparent when the first canister leaks radionuclides into the atmosphere. There needs to be exploration of the potential for an explosion from hydrogen gas buildup in the canisters.
There are two major problems with the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel: 1. The half-inch thick canisters used for dry storage are subject to various failures including chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking that can create a leak in as little as 16 years. 2. So far, there is inadequate analysis to have any confidence that permanent isolation can be provided over the million years and more that the fuel is radiotoxic.
The NRC knows that there are canisters with exposure to chlorides and that through-wall cracking can occur within 16 years, yet the NRC has been pretending that canister failure is unlikely. The NRC has admitted that canister failure is expected, down playing it by saying that it will only be a limited number of canisters that have a problem.
The NRC has not required development of a way to isolate leaking canisters. Spent fuel interim dump sites, including the proposed one in New Mexico, are unprepared to deal with the long-term threat of canisters releasing what could be several millions of curies of radionuclides into New Mexicos environment.
The NRC has excluded consideration of this very likely canister failure mechanism from its public health risk assessments and is just now studying the chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking of the canisters. The NRC has yet to find an effective method for finding crack development in these loaded canisters. Thats not all.
There is no way to fix a partial crack in a loaded canister and no way to unload the fuel from a defective canister. Exposure to the chloride-rich potash in New Mexico soil could accelerate corrosion cracking.
Why has the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved canisters that they knew were vulnerable to stress corrosion cracking? It may have to do with overly optimistic expectations that canisters would be disposed of beginning in 1998. And it likely has to do with it being the cheapest form of dry storage as fuel pools were filling up at utility reactor sites. Each canister holds 10 metric tons of nuclear fuel. The canisters have not been approved for disposal at Yucca Mountain, should it be built, nor has a facility been built that can be used to repackage the canisters for disposal or when defective.
The NRC, inexplicably, has yet to document what the human health consequences will be in terms of the various radionuclides in the spent fuel that will be blowing in the wind. A baseline epidemiological study should be performed to determine what radiation exposure people in the vicinity of the proposed area are already burdened with. Minimal radiological monitoring assures that communities wont be able to prove how large the radiological release was and how many excess cancers followed the release. Radiation workers at the
2 facility should be advised have their children before they commence with gamma and neutron exposure at the facility.
Building the spent fuel storage in New Mexico helps foster the illusion of progress toward addressing the nuclear industrys waste problem. But after the enormous expense and risk of transporting the spent fuel to New Mexico, or nearby Andrews, Texas, leaking canisters will pose extreme long-term danger to surrounding communities.
Other countries have opted for safer spent fuel storage solutions and some have opted to phase out nuclear energy. If citizens in this country were informed of the facts, they would not allow the NRC to consider cost to electric utilities above the health and safety of people living near spent fuel storage or transportation routes.
David B. McCoy, Executive Director Citizen Action New Mexico PO Box 4276 Albuquerque, NM 87196
Federal Register Notice:
83FR44922 Comment Number:
22844 Mail Envelope Properties (CAKhVgZZJBpkDZyzFLBZLDk+_gGt1GTTdRe0NOeU1=ygbrvG8uw)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket No. 72-1050; NRC-2016-0231 Supplemental Statement Sent Date:
10/5/2018 4:29:47 PM Received Date:
10/5/2018 4:30:47 PM From:
dave mccoy Created By:
dave@radfreenm.org Recipients:
Post Office:
mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4414 10/5/2018 4:30:47 PM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: