ML20267A236
| ML20267A236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 09/22/2020 |
| From: | Inserra M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 85FR16150 00120, NRC-2018-0052 | |
| Download: ML20267A236 (2) | |
Text
Page 1 of 2 SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Jill Caverly As of: 9/23/20 9:44 AM Received: September 22, 2020 COMMENT (120) Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION PUBLICATION DATE:
3/20/2020 Tracking No. kfe-uzdl-1fy3 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-0428 Comment on FR Doc # 2020-17536 Submitter Information Name: Marie Inserra Address:
Peekskill, NY, 10566 Email: minsjsul@gmail.com Phone: 914 7362549 General Comment
Dear NRC Commissioners and Staff,
I am submitting this comment in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Docket ID NRC-2018-0052) regarding Holtec Internationals application for a license to build and operate a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility [CISF] for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste (NUREG-2237). I live approximately one mile from the Indian Point Energy Center which is slated to close down by early 2021. My concerns about the Holtec company and its horrific track record begin with the proposed sale of IPEC to Holtec/SNC Lavalin for decommissioning, as well as to the possible destination of the 40 years accumulation of spent nuclear fuel from Indian Point.
I add my voice to those of the numerous individuals and organizations currently on record as opposing Holtec's proposal for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste (NUREG-2237). based on concern over public safety and health, the environment and our economy. In reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I am struck by the apparent absence of a dry cask transfer facility at the proposed site. In addition the lack of a design for long term disposal at the CISF would translate into the existence of a dangerous de facto permanent site should casks or canisters become damaged and unsafe for movement.
This is primarily an issue of Environmental Justice : New Mexico does not consent; consolidated interim storage in Texas is also unacceptable (per comments raised by the Nuclear Issues Study Group). The NRC Draft EIS on the Holtec project fails to protect the people and their environment, instead "exposing people, wildlife and precious water resources to significant and potentially deadly risk by failing to heed the concerns of the community"... a statement reflective of the views of First Nation leaders, elected officials and https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006484871f8b&format=xml&showorig=false 09/23/2020
Page 2 of 2 appointees, and representatives of the cattle growers, business communities and residents. "We do not consent to New Mexico becoming a nuclear wasteland for millions of years."
In addition, we must remember the damage visited upon the people of New Mexico by the nuclear industry for the past 75 years: uranium mining on indigenous lands; fallout on downwinders from the Trinity Test; the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, which has already accidentally released dangerous amounts of radiation and now wants to expand; the URENCO uranium enrichment plant in Eunice; the worlds largest nuclear warhead stockpile on the edge of Albuquerque with the toxic threat to Albuquerques aquifer by the Mixed Waste Landfill -- I submit that the US should be directing its resources towards cleaning up the contamination already present in New Mexico's communities and providing just compensation; and holistic community health studies, instead of adding another 173,600 metric tons of high level radioactive waste to their current burden.
Furthermore,it seems to be no coincidence that the United States wants to make New Mexico a nuclear wasteland -- it ranks as one of the poorest states and is a majority minority state, with more Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) residents than white residents. How is it possible that the NRC has determined that nuclear waste which will threaten life for millions of years would have small or no environmental impact for New Mexicans? We cannot give our own government license to allow a private industry to further contaminate New Mexicans' home or to expand the massive nuclear burden New Mexicans already bear.
The proposed site is located near or on two lagunas or playa lakes: Laguna Gatuna and Laguna Plata. Laguna Plata is an archaeological district that has been extensively studied for decades. Two sites near Laguna Gatuna, where the nuclear waste is proposed to be stored, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, under current U.S. law, this project is illegal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, does not allow the federal government to take title to the high-level radioactive waste (commercial irradiated nuclear fuel) until a permanent geologic repository is operating. Instead, this waste should be isolated on or near the current nuclear power plant site, in Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS), until there is an environmentally just and scientifically sound option available.
https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006484871f8b&format=xml&showorig=false 09/23/2020