ML20269A130
| ML20269A130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 09/22/2020 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 85FR16150 | |
| Download: ML20269A130 (3) | |
Text
From: Protecting NM From All Things Nuclear
<protectnewmexico@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:06 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource Cc: cathy iwane
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment
Dear NRC Staff,
The following comments were transcribed from the video recording of the Peoples Hearing held by the Nuclear Issues Study Group on Wednesday, September 16, 2020 (Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfCBsXCQyOU). These written comments are being submitted with the consent of the commenters. The transcription was made possible by the work of the Nuclear Issues Study Group volunteers.
Comment sent on behalf of:
CATHY IWANE Thanks everybody. I'm Cathy Iwane. Thanks so much for holding this open forum where we see peoples faces, and it's actually a little bit more humane. I just have ten bullet points for the reason that I personally oppose the docket with the NRC. They're very quick, but I think they're pretty to the point. The first one is that it's for an arbitrarily short period of 40 years and as Leona mentioned theyre, you know, trying to actually increase this to 120 years which is just ridiculous. The second one, its opposed by indigenous peoples and hundreds and hundreds of environmental groups, even around the world, we see them coming on board. It's not designed to withstand hundreds of years of heat radiation and environmental factors. Number four, it violates the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which prohibits the Department of Energy from taking ownership of high level radioactive waste without the existence of an operating permanent disposal, so right there you're in violation and I just don't understand why the NRC has the gall to go ahead with this, without clarifying that. Number five, it fails to require facility owners and managers to establish financial reserves to cover environmental restoration, personal injury, emergency response, and loss of revenue, and jobs for as long as radioactive material is on site. In other words, theres no insurance policy for any loss, and as we see the profits go to the corporations and all losses in this industry are spread out to be the responsibility of the public. Number six, it lacks substantial evidence to determine if the nation's nuclear waste storage canisters and casts will remain in a physical condition sufficient to allow offsite transportation and on-site transfer to the proposed CISF. Number seven, it lacks an on-site dry transfer system or a hot cell which is essential to repackaging aging and damaged canisters.
And this to me is a huge one, if you, recently with our own battle in San Onofre, July 16th, we all went up against the California Coastal Commission; and our main beef was, save the cooling pools. And if you're not going to save the cooling pools in
decommissioning, we definitely need a hot cell because in the event of any sort of problem you need that hot cell, and we know that a lot of these Holtec thin-walled casks are not going to be lasting over theyre only guaranteed for 25 years but they're not going to last, there's not a lot of confidence of them lasting over 40 years, and therefore you do need a hot cell to repackage that waste when it becomes necessary. This just seems like a no-brainer in my mind. Number eight, does not fully address transportation risks. The crumbling infrastructure of the U.S. cannot support 80,000 tons of high level radioactive waste transport. Number nine, lacks contingency plans to contain radiation from the environment in the event of a failure in transportation or unloading.
Catastrophes could be caused by natural disasters, human error, terrorism, or the fail of infrastructure. And we're already seeing that our government has not put any, any interest, this administration in particular, into fortifying our infrastructure, and it's just crumbling left and right. Number ten, this docket is put forth by the applicants: Holtec and Eddy Lea Energy Alliance that have a history of technical errors in operation and manufacturing and are involved in several bribery scandals. Allowing these companies to construct and manage a site of this scope would be irresponsible and negligent. So the NRC is taskedthey have to reject this proposal because they are an agency tasked with regulating for health and safety on behalf of the public interest. So those are my comments, and I would appreciateI know we have a lot of people that have worked much longer on these issues than I have. I evacuated from Fukushima in 2012, not from Fukushima, from Japan after living there for 25 years, and so Ive been working on and off for a long time on these issues, but if anyone out there finds something wrong with my comments I would be more than happy to hear about it. Thank you so much for letting me speak and thanks for holding this forum.
Nuclear Issues Study Group www.fb.com/NuclearIssuesStudyGroup
Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 4598 Mail Envelope Properties (3AC5C589-EC29-4C80-9EE6-9199D5E2BBEE)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment Sent Date: 9/22/2020 11:06:26 PM Received Date: 9/22/2020 11:06:34 PM From: Protecting NM From All Things Nuclear Created By: protectnewmexico@gmail.com Recipients:
Post Office: gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4765 9/22/2020 11:06:34 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: