ML071830447

Comment (15) of Susan Biesek Opposing the Results of the Environmental Assessment for Diablo Canyon ISFSI

ML071830447
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/27/2007
From:	Biesek S - No Known Affiliation
To:	Hall J R Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
72FR30398 00015
Download: ML071830447 (48)

Text

1 NRCREP -Docket No. 72-26 Page 1-7 From: <SumacBie@aol.com>

To: <NRCREP@nrc.gov>

Date: Wed, Jun 27, 2007 8:44 PM

Subject:

Docket No. 72-26 To James R. Hall Nuclear Regualtory Comission -cc Re: Docket No. 72-26 ý21'I am writing to comment on the NRC Staff's Supplement to the Environmental 1-Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Construction and Operation of the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

This document, written in response to the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, to address the environmental impacts of intentional attacks on the Diablo Canyon dry cask storage facility is inadequate and I believe, unacceptable.

On every point, the EA falls far short of the kind of documentation that adequately reflects the (real) mission of the NRC: "The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to enable the nation to safely use radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while ensuring that people and the environment are protected." Some of the reports inadequacies include a distortion and trivialization of the environmental impacts of attacks on the facility by using hidden and unjustified assumptions.

In all matters relating to the constructrion and long-term maintenance of an ISFSI at Diablo Canyon, the NRC appears to put the interests of the corporate entity (PG&E) ahead of the reactor community and surrounding natural environment (which is under-represented here, to say the least). In considering the consequences of potential releases of radioactive material, the NRC has employed only one indicator, namely "the potential for early fatalities." To exclude consequences other than early fatalities is absurd. Land contamination is a very serious impact that can cause delayed fatalities, illness, and billions of dollars in expenses of relocation and lost income.Radiation, in any dose, is not benign and should always be considered an environmental contaminant.

The lack of inclusion of future needs, (beyond the life-expectancy of the dry-casks, etc) and considerations in any/all assesments is a substantial lack planning and missing from this document.I believe the EA for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage facility completely fails to demonstrate the NRC made a "fully informed and well-considered" determination of no significant impacts, and I would like to see more realistic and thorough long-term planning included in this and future assesments.

Sincerely, 4-93 NI CREP -Docket No. 72-26 ..... ... ... Page 2 Susan Biesek


**

....................................

See what's free at http://www.aol.com.</HTML>

It p\QVI}00002.TMP Page-Til c:\temp\GW}00002.TMP Paqel Mail Envelope Properties (46830460.F68

9: 57192)

Subject:

Docket No. 72-26 Creation Date Wed, Jun 27, 2007 8:43 PM From: Created By: SumacBie@aol.com Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO01 .HQGWDOO1 NRCREP Post Office Route TWGWPO01.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2635 Wednesday, June 27, 2007 8:43 PM Mime.822 3715 Options Expiration Date: None Priority:

Standard ReplyRequested:

No Return Notification:

None Concealed

Subject:

No Security:

Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled