(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML21274A1552021-10-13013 October 2021 Comment (2) of William G. Grantham on Nrc'S Environmental Impact Statement for Interim Storage Partners, Llc'S 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 Statement'S Recommendation to Grant Interim Storage Partner Llc'S 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 Partner'S (Isp'S) 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 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 ML20325A3002020-11-0606 November 2020 Comment (10426) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2892020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10420) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2922020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10421) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2842020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10417) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2872020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10419) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2832020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10416) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2862020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10418) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2822020-11-0505 November 2020 Comment (10415) 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 ML20325A2722020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10407) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2632020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10401) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2652020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10402) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2752020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10410) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2692020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10404) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2612020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10400) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2792020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10413) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2732020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10408) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2742020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10409) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B1352020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10392) 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 ML20325A2702020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10405) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20325A2682020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10403) 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 ML20325A2712020-11-0404 November 2020 Comment (10406) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0672020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10324) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0042020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10270) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0692020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10326) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0382020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10296) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309A9642020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10241) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0732020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10330) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0432020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10301) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0932020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10350) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0132020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10277) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B0652020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10322) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309B1192020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10376) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS ML20309A9942020-11-0303 November 2020 Comment (10260) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS 2021-09-14
[Table view] |
Text
From: T Garmon <tgarmon3@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 9:31 PM To: WCS_CISFEIS Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] No nuclear waste in Texas
Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Dear NRC Commissioners and Staff,
Interim Storage Projects application to store radioactive waste in Texas would bring in 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors around the country.
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.
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, T Garmon 103 honeysuckle Dawsonville, GA 30534
Federal Register Notice: 85FR27447 Comment Number: 10548 Mail Envelope Properties (de794b65-d91b-489d-8345-fd3de4f04268)
Subject:
[External_Sender] No nuclear waste in Texas Sent Date: 10/13/2020 9:31:18 PM Received Date: 10/13/2020 9:31:22 PM From: T Garmon Created By: tgarmon3@yahoo.com Recipients:
Post Office: salsalabs.org Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2077 10/13/2020 9:31:22 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: