ML20307A146

Comment (9084) E-mail Regarding ISP-CISF Draft EIS

ML20307A146
Person / Time
Site:	Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
Issue date:	11/01/2020
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
85FR27447
Download: ML20307A146 (4)

Text

From: johnewilksiii@windstream.net Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 6:13 PM To: WCS_CISFEIS Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Petition to ASLBP-Interim Waste Storage Permit Application-DOC# NRC-2016-0231 Attachments: nrcwastecontrol.doc Kindly find my attached petition.

Federal Register Notice: 85FR27447 Comment Number: 9084 Mail Envelope Properties (497622298.147037028.1604272393041.JavaMail.zimbra)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Petition to ASLBP-Interim Waste Storage Permit Application-DOC# NRC-2016-0231 Sent Date: 11/1/2020 6:13:13 PM Received Date: 11/1/2020 6:13:15 PM From: johnewilksiii@windstream.net Created By: johnewilksiii@windstream.net Recipients:

Post Office: windstream.net Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 33 11/1/2020 6:13:15 PM nrcwastecontrol.doc 27830 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

John E. Wilks, III Chair, Environmental Committee Veterans For Peace, Chapter #63 (ABQ) 1115 Republic Road Winston, NM 87943 SUBMITTED BY EMAIL November 1, 2020 WCS_ISF_EIS@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP)

Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Re: Application for a 40 Year Permit Filed by Waste Control Specialist (WCS) / Interim Storage Partners LLC(ISP), to Store 40,000 Metric Tons of High Level Nuclear Wastes in Andrews County, Texas (Docket ID NRC-2016-0231)

Dear Panel Members:

This petition is timely electrically filed during the public comment filing period ending November 3, 2020.

Veterans For Peace, Chapter #63, urges denial of the pending permit application.

There are many reasons for you to not grant this permit. Central to our argument is a contention that consolidated interim storage is not statutorily provided for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Further, we disagree with the finding contained in the NRCs report which recommends the approval for radioactive waste be to transported across Texas and stored in Andrews County. Rather, we believe the safety concerns raised in 2014 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) regarding the movement along transportation routes (inter-modal) through Texas and to the site warrant disapproval of the permit. We also contend that granting the permit would pose inherent unacceptable environmental risks owing to the proposed storage sites close proximity to the Ogallala Aquifer (fresh water) and the Permian Basin (fossil fuels).

Geographically, the Andrew site would be only a few miles from to the shared state borders of Texas and New Mexico. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the state governors of Texas and New Mexico may have a limited role in the Boards decision, as this is a federal matter. Nevertheless, it is significant to note that both governors in October 2020 publicly reiterated their opposition to the establishment, in their states, of interim storage sites for high level nuclear wastes.

The NRC may seek to resolve a longstanding, nationally problem by granting this permit. The NRC has conducted an Agency Study, reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (DRAFT), received the publics virtual comments and testimony, reviewed the permit application, and deliberated. We understand that between 78,000 an 100,000 metric tons of high level waste have accumulated and continue to accumulate at the nations nuclear power generating plants and thirty-five other sites within the NRCs regulatory jurisdiction.

With the elimination of Yucca Flats, Nevada as a permanent storage site in Yucca Flats,

Nevada, a timely decision on this matter and resolution of this problem is highly desired, if not imperative. Yet, we urge the Board to foreclose the risk of transporting high level waste twiceonce to any interim storage site, then again, years later, to a permanent national storage site. We contend that continued storage in situ may not be the least expensive course of action for the waste generators and rate payers, but is it clearly the safest option for not only the public along transportation routes and at the storage site, but also the environment.

Veterans for Peace (Chapter #63-Albuquerque) urges the Board to deny the permit for interim storage of high level nuclear waste in Andrews, Texas.

Respectfully, John E. Wilks, III Committee Chair