ML18338A349
| ML18338A349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 10/26/2018 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/FCSS |
| NRC/NMSS/FCSS | |
| References | |
| 83FR44922 | |
| Download: ML18338A349 (3) | |
Text
1 WCS_CISFEISCEm Resource From:
Gayle Janzen <cgjanzen@comcast.net>
Sent:
Friday, October 26, 2018 12:13 AM To:
WCS_CISFEIS Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket No. 72-1050; NRC-2016-0231 Waste Control Specialists LLCs
/ ISPs Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Your dangerous nuclear waste proposal plan is a nightmare, so I hope you will come to your senses and reject the proposal by Waste Control Specialists and its partner to import up to 40,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear reactors around the country and store it in Andrews County for 40 years or longer. Would you want to live right next to this kind of dangerous nuclear waste site? Ill bet not, so why would you force it onto others because that seems criminal to knowingly put residents in harms way. Exposure to this dangerous waste can lead to cancers, genetic damage, birth defects and even death. Homeowners insurance doesnt cover radioactive contamination. Importing high-level radioactive waste would create risks to public health, safety and financial well-being.
If this is such a great plan, why hasnt the NRS held a single public meeting on the revised application? The NRC held only one meeting in Texas on the original application, and that was in Andrews, hundreds of miles from major cities that would be impacted by rail transport of radioactive waste. Resolutions opposing the radioactive waste plans and transport were passed by Dallas, Bexar, Nueces and Midland counties and the cities of San Antonio and Denton, but the public has not been given an opportunity to speak out in NRC public hearings.
Please extend public intervention and public comment deadlines by at least 180 days to allow for public input, and host public meetings in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Midland and Andrews - and other locations that would be impacted by this proposal. You cant say 100% that there would never be any kind of transportation accident so that in itself is reason enough to halt this plan. Not to mention the threat that terrorists could get hold of it. This plan is all about profits for Waste Control Specialists as the NRC throws any kind of caution to the wind. Your job is to protect the people from toxic nuclear waste, not throw them into the path and then not give a damn when something goes wrong.
The WCS Environmental Report is inadequate. It should be expanded to clearly identify:
- Transportation routes that would be used across the country; *Risks to groundwater and the nearby Ogallala Aquifer, which lies beneath eight states, providing drinking water and water for agriculture, ranching and wildlife; *The impacts of temperature extremes, wildfires, flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes, lightning and shifting ground (as reported in recent Southern Methodist University studies) on radioactive waste casks and canisters; *The environmental injustice of dumping high-level radioactive waste on the largely Hispanic West Texas region; and *The adequacy of financial assurances, the stability of J.F. Lehman, the new WCS owner, and the ties of partner Orano (which has a 51 percent project share) to the French government.
Improved monitoring, security and worker protections are needed, and the emergency plan should include actions to be taken in the event of an accident, not just a notification structure. It appears there are no viable plans for action should an emergency arise.
Sending radioactive waste to this site would risk public health and security for residents near the site and along transportation routes. An inadequate permanent disposal site could be created since its likely that the waste will never
2 get moved to a permanent repository. This waste will be dangerous for a million years. Storing it for decades above ground in extreme climate conditions is too risky. In the interest of our public health and safety, this license should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely, Gayle Janzen 98133
Federal Register Notice:
83FR44922 Comment Number:
23737 Mail Envelope Properties (279992244.904.1540527187584.JavaMail.tomcat)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket No. 72-1050; NRC-2016-0231 Waste Control Specialists LLCs / ISPs Consolidated Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility Project Sent Date:
10/26/2018 12:13:07 AM Received Date:
10/26/2018 12:13:10 AM From:
Gayle Janzen Created By:
cgjanzen@comcast.net Recipients:
Post Office:
vweb56 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3798 10/26/2018 12:13:10 AM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: