ML20288A901
| ML20288A901 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Consolidated Interim Storage Facility |
| Issue date: | 10/14/2020 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 85FR27447 | |
| Download: ML20288A901 (3) | |
Text
From:
Sue McHenry <sumac01@q.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 14, 2020 10:23 AM To:
WCS_CISFEIS Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] No nuclear waste in Texas
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Dear NRC Commissioners and Staff,
We have been dealing with the dangerous transportation and storage of radioactive waste for decades now. Unfortunately we still do not have a good, solid plan to deal with it. And Interim Storage Projects application to store radioactive waste in Texas bringing in 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors around the country isn't the answer. We really don't have an answer. And this plan has additional concerns from potential accidents and racial/environmental injustice.
The plan would target a Latinx community with deadly nuclear waste. Stored waste would be at risk from earthquakes, sinkholes, temperature extremes, wildfires, intense storms and flooding. If you are going to select a site, put it close to those folks who use the most power, the rich and wasteful.
Consolidated interim storage is an illegal approach that does not solve our nuclear waste problem. With this proposal, the NRC has ignored expert testimony, local opposition, and tens of thousands of written and oral comments.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is deficient because it fails to:
- Account for disproportionate impacts to low-income communities of color (environmental justice communities) in the American Southwest and along transport routes.
- Details transportation routes and consider nationwide risk to millions of Americans along transport routes.
- Consider the risk of leaks, sabotage or transportation accidents.
- Include a plan to repackage leaking waste casks and a plan to move waste when required.
- Complete the required alternatives analysis by considering Hardened Onsite Storage Systems (HOSS) as an alternative to Consolidated Interim Storage.
- Consider past nuclear waste accidents that have cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to clean up.
- Detail cumulative impacts of the proposed facility and nearby sites on workers, local people, and the environment.
- Analyze potential for groundwater contamination.
I oppose Consolidated Interim Storage at this and other sites. The DEIS fails to adequately analyze environmental and cumulative impacts and the socioeconomic risks of the proposed radioactive waste storage application. The NRC should protect public health and safety, the economy and the environment, by halting the application process and denying the license for Consolidated Interim Storage.
Sincerely, Sue McHenry PO Box 1492 Silverthorne, CO 80498
Federal Register Notice:
85FR27447 Comment Number:
4710 Mail Envelope Properties (cab78e00-6472-4927-9d0a-d04b1f8a57b4)
Subject:
[External_Sender] No nuclear waste in Texas Sent Date:
10/14/2020 10:22:40 AM Received Date:
10/14/2020 10:22:58 AM From:
Sue McHenry Created By:
sumac01@q.com Recipients:
Post Office:
salsalabs.org Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2512 10/14/2020 10:22:58 AM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: