|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML21274A1552021-10-13013 October 2021 Comment (2) of William G. Grantham on NRCs Environmental Impact Statement for Interim Storage Partners, LLCs Application to Store High Level Nuclear Waste in Andrews County ML21278A5442021-09-14014 September 2021 Comment (3) of James C. Kenney Opposing the NRC Final Environmental Impact Statements Recommendation to Grant Interim Storage Partner LLCs License to Store Spent Nuclear Fuel ML21274A1532021-09-11011 September 2021 Comment (1) of Allan Kanner on Final Environmental Impact Statement (Feis) for Interim Storage Partners (Isps) License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) in Andrews County, Texas ML20323A2022020-11-18018 November 2020 Comment (10396) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20317A2812020-11-12012 November 2020 Comment (10395) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A3022020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10427) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A3002020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10426) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2992020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10425) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2972020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10424) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2962020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10423) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2952020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10422) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20311A2652020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10394) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2922020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10421) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2892020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10420) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2872020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10419) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2862020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10418) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2842020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10417) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2832020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10416) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2822020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10415) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20311A2042020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10393) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2812020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10414) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2792020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10413) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2772020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10412) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2762020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10411) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2752020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10410) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2742020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10409) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2732020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10408) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2722020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10407) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2712020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10406) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2702020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10405) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2692020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10404) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2682020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10403) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2612020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10400) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2652020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10402) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2632020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10401) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2592020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10399) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2562020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10398) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B1352020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10392) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0612020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10319) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0912020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10348) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0622020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10320) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0632020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10321) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0662020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10323) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0702020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10327) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0712020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10328) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0722020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10329) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0752020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10332) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0762020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10333) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0772020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10334) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0792020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10336) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS 2021-09-14
[Table view] |
Text
From:
Jennifer Germano (salemfreeek1692@aol.com) Sent You a Personal Message <automail@knowwho.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 9:48 AM To:
WCS_CISFEIS Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2016-0231: Please deny the WCS storage site in Texas
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
I live in New Mexico, but even if I didn?t, I would not agree with these temporary nuclear waste depositories. Please do not put these communities in danger. Please find an existing permanent storage facility for this waste, or create one specifically for this waste in an area will it will not so immediately affect a human community.
Thank you, Jennifer Germano The WCS permit for an interim consolidated storage site should be denied. The ISP Draft Environmental Impact Statement is misleading, incomplete and denies or ignores reality. It:
--Fails to assess the additional risk to the country that one or more CIS sites will cause. Not all waste will be moved from all nuclear power reactors sites to ISP/WCS (or to the Holtec site proposed nearby) thus the CIS sites are ADDITIONAL sites requiring massive transport risks, with no guarantee that the sites sending the waste will really be cleaned up.
--Incorrectly assumes only 40 years of storage even though the waste could be at the site far longer than that, potentially indefinitely. The DEIS incorrectly assumes there will be a permanent repository elsewhere, despite the only proposed permanent repository at Yucca Mountain having been rightly cancelled in 2010. The ISP/WCS application does not provide protections for long term or permanent isolation and the DEIS ignores this. The more-likely reality?i.e., that the waste will be at the site for much longer than the 40-year license period?is not addressed in the DEIS. This puts the air, water, soil and ecosystem at long term risk from radioactivity.
--Incorrectly assumes all waste and containers that arrive will be intact and waste will not need to be re-containerized for the decades it will remain at the WCS ISP site. The DEIS fails to address what happens when waste must be repackaged. The application and the DEIS should require a wet or dry transfer facility to shield the intense radioactivity so it can be repaired or transferred to new containers.
Workers, passers-by and the environs could receive massive, potentially lethal, gamma doses in that scenario--yet no assessment is provided in the DEIS.
--Fails to address the environmental impacts of returning damaged containers of high-level radioactive waste if they arrive in unacceptable condition. ISP?s plan is to "return to sender" with no analysis of the logically higher risk of transporting failed fuel and/or containers twice.
--Ignores potential higher risks from damaged fuel and high burnup fuel.
--Fails to acknowledge or respect the institutional racism in selecting the ISP WCS site in West Texas.
--Fails to acknowledge impacts on all transport routes to the site. I call on NRC to hold in-person DEIS meetings all along the potential routes and to extend the comment period until six months after the COVID-19 crisis ends.
WCS_CISF_EIS@nrc.gov Sincerely, Jennifer Germano PO Box 523 Tierra Amarilla, NM 87575 salemfreeek1692@aol.com (951) 334-9446 This message was sent by KnowWho, as a service provider, on behalf of an individual associated with Sierra Club. If you need more information, please contact Rio Grande Sierra Club at Sierra Club at riogrande.chapter@sierraclub.org or (415) 977-5500.
Federal Register Notice:
85FR27447 Comment Number:
10260 Mail Envelope Properties (07Xe7UISS8-Z-Yi8Ix5krg)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2016-0231: Please deny the WCS storage site in Texas Sent Date:
11/3/2020 9:47:38 AM Received Date:
11/3/2020 9:47:42 AM From:
Jennifer Germano (salemfreeek1692@aol.com) Sent You a Personal Message Created By:
automail@knowwho.com Recipients:
Post Office:
ismtpd0027p1iad2.sendgrid.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3299 11/3/2020 9:47:42 AM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: