ML20128J226

Comment (39) of Steven Curtis Opposing on Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project

ML20128J226
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	05/06/2020
From:	Curtis S - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
85FR16150 00039, NRC-2018-0052
Download: ML20128J226 (2)

Text

Page 1 of 2 SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 As of: 5/7/20 7:53 AM ADD: Jill Caverly Received: May 06, 2020 Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION COMMENT (39)

PUBLICATION DATE: Tracking No. 1k4-9gj6-g1gj 3/20/2020 Comments Due: July 22, 2020 CITATION 85 FR 16150 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2018-0052 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project Comment On: NRC-2018-0052-0300 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project Document: NRC-2018-0052-DRAFT-0347 Comment on FR Doc # 2020-05690 Submitter Information Name: Steven Curtis Address:

13504 Loon LN Lake Park, 56554-9100 Email: curtis@readinessresource.net General Comment I oppose the licensing of an interim facility for the storage of used nuclear fuel:

1. There is no workable final solution for used nuclear fuel, so an interim storage facility would be a needless expense.

2. The transportation of used nuclear fuel would have to be accomplished twice, further increasing expenses.

3. The recycling of used nuclear fuel should be employed using pyroprocessing and an integral fast reactor design to extract all the energy from used nuclear fuel.

4. An interim facility would only help delay the final solution for used nuclear fuel for another two generations and is only a very expensive band-aid on the problem.

5. Disturbing pristine desert habitat is not prudent unless absolutely necessary, and this is not necessary.

I have extensively studied the pyroprocessing technique working with Argonne National Laboratory scientists and it would be a disservice to the public and the efforts to attain clean air if the energy stored in the used nuclear fuel were sequestered away. Storing it where it is seems to be the prudent solution, both economically and ethically until recycling is implemented as the long-term solution. Of course, if recycling is anticipated to be done on the "interim site", that would be far more acceptable, but no such plan is evident. Forcing a solution on a citizenry has failed in Nevada and both New Mexico and Texas have expressed their opposition to this idea unless a workable long-term solution exists, which it does not at this point. As suggested in the Blue-Ribbon Committee (2012) and the Stanford Study (2018) entitled "Reset of America's Nuclear Waste https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648456ba5f&format=xml&showorig=false 05/07/2020

Page 2 of 2 Management Strategy and Policy", support from the local stakeholders should be attained before huge amounts of funding are expended on a strategy that will be defeated by local opposition.

I recommend establishing a pilot plant for pyroprocessing/fast reactor project to supply clean energy to the US on an existing reactor site leading to a larger facility that can add to the uranium stockpile and lead to international business in the future. The public is far more accepting of a "recycling" approach than a "waste in my backyard" solution.

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=090000648456ba5f&format=xml&showorig=false 05/07/2020