ML20267A179

Comment (108) from Erica Gray on Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project

ML20267A179
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	09/23/2020
From:	Gray E - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
85FR16150 00108, NRC-2019-0052
Download: ML20267A179 (2)

Text

Page 1 of 2 SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Jill Caverly As of: 9/23/20 8:18 AM Received: September 22, 2020 COMMENT (108) Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION PUBLICATION DATE:

3/20/2020 Tracking No. kfe-tkj6-elud CITATION 85 FR 16150 Comments Due: September 22, 2020 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2018-0052 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project Comment On: NRC-2018-0052-0376 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project Document: NRC-2018-0052-DRAFT-0416 Comment on FR Doc # 2020-17536 Submitter Information Name: Erica Gray Address:

HENRICO, VA, 23229 Email: veggielady@yahoo.com Phone: 8043080738 General Comment RE: Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Holtec International HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project This whole project to make Andrews County Texas an interim high level nuclear waste storage site, should be halted.

Most Texans have no idea their Governor and legislators have approved of such a horrible plan, without their approval.

The reality is there are many other issues that have not been properly addressed either:

Americans have not been advised on planned routes, as these highly radioactive shipments will be going through their cities, towns and sharing the road and rail with them..

The EIS 2.3 line 1 states Alternatives were eliminated from the detailed analysis storage at governmental owed CISF the DOE operates.

When did the American public agree for an LLC to handle and operate a high level nuclear waste storage site?

One mistake and they will go bankrupt leaving taxpayers with the mess and the bill.

2.3.2.3 Hardened extended life local monitored surface storage (HELMS) Alternative denied and eliminated from detailed considerations from the EIS.

Ridiculous as these canisters have not been approved to store high burn up fuel yet and surely not to be https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006484871bfc&format=xml&showorig=false 09/23/2020

Page 2 of 2 transported.

These thin walled canisters are not sufficient and can't be properly monitored.

Plus the North Anna high burn up fuel test project has not been completed. The NRC has been allowing the industry to increase burn up over the years with no true understanding of it's behavior long term. Last I heard there is still no facility to even open up the experimental cask and examine the contents yet.

The area/location picked sits on top of a major aquifer.

https://www.twdb.texas.gov/mapping/doc/maps/Major_Aquifers_8x11.pdf Area also has seismic activity: Which makes pg 2-24 line 17 "favorable seismologically."...void.

https://earthquaketrack.com/us-tx-andrews/recent We should only move the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel 1 time. This temporary parking lot style nuclear waste dump scam is not only an absurd proposition, but a project that will waste infrastructure funds and endanger everyone on the route to the location.

I oppose this consolidated interim storage project.

Erica Gray https://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/high-burnup-spent-fuel-data-project-sister-rod-test-plan-overview https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006484871bfc&format=xml&showorig=false 09/23/2020