ML25317A565
| ML25317A565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07007033 |
| Issue date: | 10/06/2025 |
| From: | Gellert S - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2025-1007, 90FR42988 00004 | |
| Download: ML25317A565 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 11/13/25, 9:33 AM Received: October 06, 2025 Status: Posted Posted: October 29, 2025 Tracking No. mgf-du86-jzsg Comments Due: October 06, 2025 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2025-1007 Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility, McCracken County, Kentucky; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Comment On: NRC-2025-1007-0001 Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2025-1007-0005 Comment from Sally Jane Gellert on Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility, McCracken County, Kentucky; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Submitter Information Name: Sally Jane Gellert Address:
Woodcliff Lake, NJ, 07677 Email:SJGUU@aol.com General Comment I am opposed to this facility, in fact to laser enrichment entirely. Scoping must consider the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation, especially with nuclear weapons now being outlawed internationally. Laser enrichment is done in smaller buildings and without a heat signature, it has a low profile that cannot be detected by air or satellitefrightening when one considers the potential for not only governments, but also private entities, to operate in secrecy.
Habitat destruction for many species, as well as the dangers from radioactivity (to which both birds and bats are very sensitive) must be considered in scoping. In particular, there is a potential to harm the endangered Indiana Bat, which has been found in the area, so presumably have habitat there; it will despoil a previous wilderness management area, and contaminating land closer to residential areas.
Although it is claimed that there will be no habitat mitigation needed, studyingor worse, destroying habitatat a time when wildlife is not present endangers these species unnecessarily. There are electrical power lines running through the area that will need to be moved.
Regarding radioactivity, there are potential effects on workers at nuclear sites, nearby residents, as well as area wildlife. Radionuclides would be similar for any type of enrichment, but how quickly radioactive contamination will spread from a large laser facility is not known. It would be informative to do tests for radioactivity both on-and offsite at the GLE laser test loop facility in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Wetland areas and the creation of forest edges must also be considered. There is contiguous forested wetland habitat abutting the site; this would be indirectly affected by the creation of forest edges.
11/13/25, 9:35 AM NRC-2025-1007-0005.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2025-1007-0005.html 1/2 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Amy Minor, Mary Neely Comment (4)
Publication Date:
9/5/2025 Citation: 90 FR 42988
Although the environmental report downplays this effectindustry always claims that impacts will be small, though often reality is quite a bit worse, changes in sources and direction of water caused by industrial development could affect habitat by making that land either wetter or drier, and those effects must be considered.
The costs of laser enrichment, from financial to environmental, to public health must be considered in scoping this project. The dangers of nuclear war are enormous, and laser enrichment brings them closer than otherwise, in addition to using resources and funds that our society desperately needs for humane purposes, puts us as a nation further in debt, and adds to the war culture that is so potentially destructive.
11/13/25, 9:35 AM NRC-2025-1007-0005.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2025-1007-0005.html 2/2