ML20266G304
| ML20266G304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 09/21/2020 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 85FR16150 | |
| Download: ML20266G304 (6) | |
Text
From: Marcia Hart <marciahart@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 5:53 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Attachments: I am writing to submit a public comment on NRC Docket 2018.docx Below is an email of my letter and above is an attachment.
I am writing to submit a public comment on NRC Docket 2018-0052 in regards to the license application by Holtec International to build and operate a consolidated interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste which has been proposed in New Mexico.
I listened to the final public hearing, in the series, on September 2nd on this subject and was stuck by the many comments against this application going through, which clearly predominated the meeting. Comments were offered by local and state legislators, people who have worked in the nuclear field, military veterans, national and local environmental groups, local and national nuclear watch dog groups, social service agency representatives, and local white, Hispanic and Native American individuals, and some people like me who live outside of the state of NM but find that the concerns for all issues nuclear transcend every geographical boundary.
It appears the people of New Mexico do not want this storage facility in their state. It is clear that the state of New Mexico has already received a disproportionate amount of the health and social costs of the nuclear legacy. The state demographics include extremely high poverty levels and fact that 60% of New Mexico's population is either Hispanic or Native American. This makes the siting of this facility in this state an environmental justice issue. COVID has truly exposed the health effects of our practices of siting pollution sources and waste in poorer communities and communities of color. It is obvious that wealthier communities have the economic, social and educational resources to prevent their communities from even being considered for such a project. It is up to government regulation to enforce equity and to avoid jeopardizing the health and safety of our already more vulnerable populations, in such a disproportionate manner.
In fact, there is no safe site for consolidating the nations nuclear plant waste. To accomplish this consolidation requires many years of transporting dangerous waste, across 44 states to arrive there. I am completely opposed to the transport of nuclear plant waste on our highways, railways and waterways. This application does not adequately account for the extreme weather, natural disasters, potential terrorist activity or deteriorating national infrastructure that could potentially create devastating outcomes along these travel routes.
There is a lack of knowledge that this process is even occurring in this country. Few I know are even aware that this process is taking place. Our public process is inadequate for such serious decision-making. This is an example of the empty shell of what is supposed to be a robust public process and you are the overseers of this inadequate version of public inclusion. Many in New Mexico, I heard during the hearing, feel the demographics of their area cannot fairly respond to a public process during COVID. I can offer that I was able to access the meeting by phone but was unable to access the online slides presented, despite having successfully utilized several online meeting platforms during COVID. This faceless process, fraught with dropped calls and the moderator being unable to identify the next caller did not instill confidence in the NRCs public commitment or in its choice of Holtec to containerize, transport and manage high level toxic waste.
During the hearing, the integrity and honesty and therefore the insured safety provided by Holtec was also questioned. I read more about this to verify the comments made against the Holtec company. I did not find this information search reassuring. I am concerned that the TVA has penalized them, that they failed to report this in their application, that the MA Governor and AG had to take measures to assure they operated responsibility regarding their Pilgrim contract and that they are in litigation with the State of New Jersey. I also read about a potential request for grand jury oversight of the land being sold for the disposal site and possible bribery taking place, involving Holtec and the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance.
Two other items stood out as beyond the comprehension of a thoughtful person. First, that the evaluations that were conducted were done using normal operating conditions only and that climate change issues and age-related effects on the containment casks were not considered. The absurdity of this, given the projected time that radioactive waste is hazardous cannot be understated. The second issue, equally absurd, is that there is no on-site facility planned to re-containerize damaged casks and that casks arriving damaged to the site will be returned to their original location. Together, these issues, indicate an unreasonable lack of regard for public safety and an unrealistic outlook toward an array of toxic nuclear substances capable of having devastating public health consequences.
This site has two possible outcomes. It is temporary or it is permanent. If it is temporary then the waste will be moved at least twice, which makes no sense. If it is permanent then a different process and construction plan is needed. I have been hearing since the nineteen seventies, when I was in my twenties, that it wouldn't be long before the nuclear waste problem was solved. Now I am in my seventies and witness that not only has this problem remained unsolved, in a meaningful way but we are simply moving the problem out of sight, for another generation to deal with. The term intergenerational injustice, was used repeatedly to describe this.
I ask you to leave the waste where it is, make its care and containment a part of the operating cost of nuclear energy production and provide the nation with a process and plan that reflects the long-lived toxicity of the waste being contained.
Sincerely, Marcia F Hart R
Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 3978 Mail Envelope Properties (MN2PR06MB5871A52148B4712543F293F5D53D0)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Sent Date: 9/21/2020 5:52:54 PM Received Date: 9/21/2020 5:52:58 PM From: Marcia Hart Created By: marciahart@hotmail.com Recipients:
Post Office: MN2PR06MB5871.namprd06.prod.outlook.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5957 9/21/2020 5:52:58 PM I am writing to submit a public comment on NRC Docket 2018.docx 17066 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
I am writing to submit a public comment on NRC Docket 2018-0052 in regards to the license application by Holtec International to build and operate a consolidated interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste which has been proposed in New Mexico.
I listened to the final public hearing, in the series, on September 2nd on this subject and was stuck by the many comments against this application going through, which clearly predominated the meeting. Comments were offered by local and state legislators, people who have worked in the nuclear field, military veterans, national and local environmental groups, local and national nuclear watch dog groups, social service agency representatives, and local white, Hispanic and Native American individuals, and some people like me who live outside of the state of NM but find that the concerns for all issues nuclear transcend every geographical boundary.
It appears the people of New Mexico do not want this storage facility in their state. It is clear that the state of New Mexico has already received a disproportionate amount of the health and social costs of the nuclear legacy. The state demographics include extremely high poverty levels and fact that 60% of New Mexico's population is either Hispanic or Native American. This makes the siting of this facility in this state an environmental justice issue. COVID has truly exposed the health effects of our practices of siting pollution sources and waste in poorer communities and communities of color. It is obvious that wealthier communities have the economic, social and educational resources to prevent their communities from even being considered for such a project. It is up to government regulation to enforce equity and to avoid jeopardizing the health and safety of our already more vulnerable populations, in such a disproportionate manner.
In fact, there is no safe site for consolidating the nations nuclear plant waste. To accomplish this consolidation requires many years of transporting dangerous waste, across 44 states to arrive there. I am completely opposed to the transport of nuclear plant waste on our highways, railways and waterways. This application does not adequately account for the extreme weather, natural disasters, potential terrorist activity or deteriorating national infrastructure that could potentially create devastating outcomes along these travel routes.
There is a lack of knowledge that this process is even occurring in this country. Few I know are even aware that this process is taking place. Our public process is inadequate for such serious decision-making. This is an example of the empty shell of what is supposed to be a robust public process and you are the overseers of this inadequate version of public inclusion. Many in New Mexico, I heard during the hearing, feel the demographics of their area cannot fairly respond to a public process during COVID. I can offer that I was able to access the meeting by phone but was unable to access the online slides presented, despite having successfully utilized several online meeting platforms during COVID. This faceless process, fraught with dropped calls and the moderator being unable to identify the next caller did not instill confidence in the NRCs public commitment or in its choice of Holtec to containerize, transport and manage high level toxic waste.
During the hearing, the integrity and honesty and therefore the insured safety provided by Holtec was also questioned. I read more about this to verify the comments made against the Holtec company. I did not find this information search reassuring. I am concerned that the TVA has penalized them, that they failed to report this in their application, that the MA Governor and AG had to take measures to assure they operated responsibility regarding their Pilgrim contract and that they are in litigation with the State of New Jersey. I also read about a potential request for grand jury oversight of the land being sold for the disposal site and possible bribery taking place, involving Holtec and the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance.
Two other items stood out as beyond the comprehension of a thoughtful person. First, that the evaluations that were conducted were done using normal operating conditions only and that climate change issues and age-related effects on the containment casks were not considered.
The absurdity of this, given the projected time that radioactive waste is hazardous cannot be understated. The second issue, equally absurd, is that there is no on-site facility planned to re-containerize damaged casks and that casks arriving damaged to the site will be returned to their original location. Together, these issues, indicate an unreasonable lack of regard for public safety and an unrealistic outlook toward an array of toxic nuclear substances capable of having devastating public health consequences.
This site has two possible outcomes. It is temporary or it is permanent. If it is temporary then the waste will be moved at least twice, which makes no sense. If it is permanent then a different process and construction plan is needed. I have been hearing since the nineteen seventies, when I was in my twenties, that it wouldn't be long before the nuclear waste problem was solved. Now I am in my seventies and witness that not only has this problem remained unsolved, in a meaningful way but we are simply moving the problem out of sight, for another generation to deal with. The term intergenerational injustice, was used repeatedly to describe this.
I ask you to leave the waste where it is, make its care and containment a part of the operating cost of nuclear energy production and provide the nation with a process and plan that reflects the long-lived toxicity of the waste being contained.
Sincerely, Marcia F Hart RN