ML18338A547
| ML18338A547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 11/02/2018 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/FCSS |
| NRC/NMSS/FCSS | |
| References | |
| 83FR44922 | |
| Download: ML18338A547 (3) | |
Text
1 WCS_CISFEISCEm Resource From:
Cynthia Weehler <cnthweehler@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, November 2, 2018 10:10 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,
I live on one of the roads carrying this waste to WIPP and WCS. Indeed, most of the country lives next to some road or rail that will transport this waste. When they realize how close the risk of transporting waste is to their homes, there will be a huge backlash against this decision by the NRC. We do not want the waste moved at this time. It is far safer to leave it onsite in hardened cask storage until there is one place to put it. You are considering moving extremely hazardous waste to a TEMPORARY site, before moving it AGAIN to a permanent site. Talk about increasing the risk exponentially.
I attended a public meeting of the NRC concerning the safety of transporting the waste. It was obvious that the tests were inadequate and the speakers tried to imply that there would be no problem with transportation. They kept saying that the results "validated their hypothesis that it was safe to transport this waste." First, scientists don't try to validate their hypotheses, they try to invalidate their hypotheses. If they can't invalidate them, it means the hypothesis is robust.
Slips like this make it obvious that the NRC is involved in a snow job. Secondly, their transportation tests did not show what would happen if the shipment encountered a hurricane, terrorist attack, or accident impact.
I urge you to 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.
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.
The NRC has not 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.
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
2 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 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, Cynthia Weehler Cynthia Weehler 87508
Federal Register Notice:
83FR44922 Comment Number:
23835 Mail Envelope Properties (1027648515.6038.1541167799618.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:
11/2/2018 10:09:59 AM Received Date:
11/2/2018 10:10:01 AM From:
Cynthia Weehler Created By:
cnthweehler@gmail.com Recipients:
Post Office:
vweb41 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4373 11/2/2018 10:10:01 AM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: