ML20261H567

Comment (3942) E-mail Regarding Holtec-CISF Draft EIS

ML20261H567
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	09/16/2020
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
85FR16150
Download: ML20261H567 (11)

Text

From: Patty Hughs <pattyhughs@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 11:10 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource Cc: Patty Hughs

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Public Comment Attachments: 2020-05-18-NEPA-EIS-Savannah-River-Plutonium-Pits-Final.pdf

Dear NRC Commission and Staff:

We are submitting this in strong opposition to the approval of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Docket ID NRC-2018-0052) regarding Holtec Internationals application for a license to build and operate a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility [CISF] for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste (NUREG-2237). We oppose the DEIS for the following reasons:

1. As it now stands the proposed Holtec project is illegal. There is no established permanent geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste operating and under current U.S. law the project cannot be issued a liscense to operate as Holtec proposes. The fact of its illegality alone should have been enough to have stopped the DEIS from ever have gotten to this stage.

2. The DEIS only considers impacts under "normal" operating conditions and does not consider what the environmental impacts would be when, not if, there is an accident either in waste handling or likely failure of the thin walled dry storage casks or if the storage period extends past 40 years. The NRC is supposed to protect the health and safety of US citizens and is doing neither with its cavalier attitude that all operations will be "normal" or within the 40 year time frame particularly when the licensing period can be extended easily up to 120 years.

3. James C. Kenney, Cabinet Secretary, New Mexico Environment Department, wrote a letter to Jennifer Nelson, NEPA Compliance Officer, NNSA on May 18, 2020 (see attachment). While this letter specifically commented on the shortcomings of the April 2020 Savannah River Site (SRS) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production, the comment concerns are very pertinent to this DEIS, particularly parts of comment 4 and we quote in part:

Given the disproportionate burden of public health and environmental risks that the State of New Mexico bears related to nuclear energy and weapons programs, every aspect of the Proposed Action must provide the highest level of protection to New Mexico citizens, including use of best available technology in these safeguards. Uranium mining and milling, legacy contamination at national laboratories, disposal of defense waste at WIPP, and the proposed indefinite storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel has long created risks to public health and the environment in the State of New Mexico that are disproportionately greater than such risks to the general population of the United States.

The letter then goes on to say under Comment 4 and we quote in part:

New Mexico contains significantly greater percentages of Hispanic or Latino and American Indian residents, as well as people living in poverty, than in the United States general population.

The draft EIS fails to demonstrate that the Proposed Action will achieve environmental justice for the high percentage of minority and low-income populations in the State of New Mexico that

have already suffered disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of U.S. Department of Energy programs. Environmental justice deficiencies in the draft EIS include:

b. Failure to identify and evaluate the cumulative history of adverse human health and environmental effects on New Mexicos vulnerable populations.

c. Failure to evaluate release scenarios from the Proposed Action, such as transportation accidents, that might adversely affect vulnerable populations in New Mexico.

d. Repeated, yet unsubstantiated, assertions that cumulative environmental impacts from the Proposed Action would be either not notable or not expected. The environmental justice deficiencies in the draft EIS must be corrected by preparation of a proper risk assessment that evaluates all potential release scenarios and that quantifies incident-specific and cumulative impacts to vulnerable populations in New Mexico.

While Secretary Kenneys letter does not directly address the subject DEIS, he is very aware of the proposed action in his comment. The same shortcomings identified in Secretary Kenneys letter also apply to the subject DEIS. Simply stating that impacts or accidents will not happen, or that already vulnerable populations will not be affected does not make it so and is ludicrous to believe that it will be true.

4. Economic Harm to the State of New Mexico Holtec would store 173,000 metric tons of waste from over 97 operating reactors in 30 states, plus other existing stockpiles in several other states. None of those states think they can afford the risk of storing the waste that was generated in fueling their own economies. The economic risks to New Mexico are watershed.

Governor Lujan Grisham says that SE NM is an economic driver for NM and some estimate the contribution to NMs revenue is 30 to 40%. According to local, state and federal statisticians, only 4 industries in Eddy and Lea Counties - oil and gas, mining, tourism and agriculture - bring in revenues of 5.6 billion dollars PER YEAR and employ over 20,000 people, all of which would be at risk when, not if, an accident occurs. We are told Holtec would bring construction jobs and 50 permanent jobs and add 5 million to the economy. One accident and Holtec is economic replacement, not economic development. Is that a fair trade if just one canister emits its radiation - radiation which is equivalent to of all the cesium 137 and 3 times the amount of plutonium that was released at Chernobyl?

Following is verifiable data on the economic contribution of the four industries cited in the paragraph above:

Agriculture From USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture, 2017 Census Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level Data, Tables 2 and 8 Eddy County: Total market value of agricultural products sold - $97,278,000 Total estimated market value of land and buildings - $643,051,000 Number of farms/ranches - 507

Lea County: Total market value of agricultural products sold - $192,242,000 Total estimated market value of land and buildings - $798,666,000 Number of farms/ranches - 555 Potash From New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 2018 Annual Report, Table 1, page21 Eddy and Lea Counties: Potash production value - $283,353,622 Employment - 732 people Oil and Gas From New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 2018 Annual Report, FY 2018 Oil and Gas Production by County, page 15 Eddy County: FY 2108 Oil production - 78,751,059 barrels FY 2018 Gas production - 395,284,906 million cubic feet Lea County: FY 2018 Oil production - 110,720,047 barrels FY 2018 Gas production - 338,978,167 million cubic feet From Economic Development Corporation of Lea County Economic Indicators 2019 Total gross receipts for Oil and Gas Activities in Lea County - $1,938,140,772 From Roberta Smith, Eddy County Government Finance Director, November1, 2019 Total gross receipts for Oil and Gas Activities in Eddy County - $1,443,038,911 From NM Workforce Connection Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 2018 Eddy County: Average employment in oil and gas extraction alone - 1,483 people Total wage - $184,218,185 Lea County: Average employment in oil and gas extraction alone - 980 people Total wage - $108,519,835 Tourism

From National Park Service Annual Park Recreation Visitation Carlsbad Caverns National Park: Number of visitors in 2018 - 465,912 Number of visitors in 2017 - 520,026 From NM Tourism Department, Economic Impact of Tourism in New Mexico, 2017 Eddy County: Visitor spending - $234,600,000 Tourism employment - 2,722 jobs supported directly by tourism

- 3,683 jobs indirectly supported by tourism Tourism Labor Income - $67,000,000 from jobs directly supported by tourism

- $104,000,000 from jobs indirectly supported by tourism Lea County: Visitor spending - $182,000,000 Tourism employment - 2,471 jobs supported directly by tourism

- 3,345 jobs indirectly supported by tourism Tourism Labor income - $57,5000,000 from jobs directly supported by tourism

- $91,700,000 from jobs indirectly supported by tourism Again, Governor Lujan Grisham says this facility is economic malpractice and an unacceptable risk. This cannot be an acceptable risk to the NRC.

NM families cannot afford to be the nations nuclear waste dumping ground. We do not have the means to risk our livelihoods, our homes, our children, our culture, and our future in order to save citizens in the rest of the country from the risk of storing the most toxic substance on the face of the earth. Nor can we afford the reality and the stigma of being the nations sacrifice zone.

5. Moral:

You have said that risks are primarily small with a few moderate risks. We were told the canisters holding the waste are robust. The DOE says that many issues concerning the storage of spent nuclear fuel are in need of research before storage canisters and systems can be understood or classified as safe. No release of radiation during accidents, as stated by Jill Caverly in her slide presentation given in the NRC comment webinars is an unbelievably bad assumption.

We know canister cracks cant be detected, cant be repaired, and to add to that, canisters are under pressure with no relief valves and no monitoring capability. When you characterize what you are sending to New Mexico as robust, you are not being honest about their problems.

Also, according to Dept. of Energy database, NM will contain over 90% of the radioactivity in the US.

Also, this temporary ground level dump would house 2.5 times the amount of waste slated for Yucca Mountain.

The NRC rates the risk of amassing all the nations high-level nuclear waste in a facility built to interim standards, for what Secretary of Energy Rick Perry called de facto permanent storage, as small to moderate for every impact it evaluated. It thats true why not leave the waste where it is until permanent storage can be found? Why is waste not safe anywhere else but in NM? In your evaluation you have ignored the information provided by our New Mexico state government, the State Environment Department and our Governor that the DEIS contains false information.

This waste site has every potential to eternally pollute NM.

This may well be the most important licensing the NRC has ever handled and certainly, there is no precedent anywhere else in the US for what you are trying to do in NM. It would seem that, despite your mission to protect people and the environment, you are not protecting us and are not being forthright.

At best, the NRC is minimizing, or worse hiding, the most maximum of consequences. You have assumed the power to deny the wishes of NMs Governor, US Senators and Congressmen, and the people of NM in denying us face to face hearings. Apparently, in licensing the Holtec facility you also have the power to set us on the most dangerous course any state can be on.

This effort is against the law, is being pushed forward without a permanent solution in sight, is based on questionable, at best, technology, and shows the greatest of disrespect to NM citizens by not holding hearings face to face in the light of day. For all the reasons mentioned and more, this is immoral.

6. Woefully inadequate outreach Jal, New Mexico is less than 40 miles from the Holtec dump site. WE were the people who informed a Jal City Councilor about the Holtec site 1 1/2 years ago. WE informed an oil company operating in the six mile impact radius about Holtec at about the same time. WE informed an Eddy County Commissioner about the details of the Holtec proposal. If WE are the agents for informing people so greatly impacted by the Holtec project, something is greatly wrong with your outreach to New Mexico.

In closing, the draft EIS is inadequate and inaccurate and misleading and should be withdrawn.

We are adding these comments in addition to the comments we have given on the NRC webinars.

Sincerely, Ed and Patty Hughs Mailing Address:

5530 Remington Road Las Cruces, NM 88011

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 3942 Mail Envelope Properties (1558658975.5442699.1600312217385)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket ID NRC-2018-0052, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Public Comment Sent Date: 9/16/2020 11:10:17 PM Received Date: 9/16/2020 11:14:38 PM From: Patty Hughs Created By: pattyhughs@yahoo.com Recipients:

Post Office: mail.yahoo.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 12178 9/16/2020 11:14:38 PM 2020-05-18-NEPA-EIS-Savannah-River-Plutonium-Pits-Final.pdf 373736 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Harold Runnels Building 1190 Saint Francis Drive, PO Box 5469 Michelle Lujan Grisham Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 James C. Kenney Governor Telephone (505) 827-2855 Cabinet Secretary www.env.nm.gov Jennifer J. Pruett Howie C. Morales Lt. Governor Deputy Secretary May 18, 2020 Jennifer Nelson NEPA Compliance Officer National Nuclear Security Administration Savannah River Field Office P.O. Box A Aiken, SC 29802 Submitted electronically to: NEPA-SRS@srs.gov RE: Savannah River Site, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production

Dear Ms. Nelson,

On behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), attached please find our comments on the April 2020 Savannah River Site (SRS) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production. NMEDs comments are attached.

Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss further.

Sincerely, Digitally signed by James Kenney Date: 2020.05.18 14:07:23 -06'00' James C. Kenney Cabinet Secretary Attachment (1) cc: Courtney Kerster, Director of Federal Affairs, Office of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham Sarah Cottrell Propst, Secretary, New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Mike Sandoval, Secretary, New Mexico Department of Transportation Rebecca Roose, Director, NMED Water Protection Division Stephane Stringer, Director, NMED Resource Protection Division Science l Innovation l Collaboration l Compliance

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION COMMENTS MAY 18, 2020 Attachment Introduction To meet national security requirements, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is pursuing a two-prong approach to the production of plutonium pitsproduce a minimum of 50 pits per year at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina and a minimum of 30 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico.

The NNSA prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of producing a minimum of 50 pits per year at SRS. The NNSAs Proposed Action is to repurpose the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at the SRS to produce a minimum of 50 war reserve pits per year and to develop the ability to implement a short-term surge capacity to enable NNSA to meet the requirements of producing pits at a rate of not less than 80 war reserve pits per year beginning during 2030 for the nuclear weapons stockpile. The Proposed Action also includes activities across the Nuclear Weapons Complex associated with transportation, waste management, and ancillary support (e.g., staging and testing) for the pit production mission at SRS. Apart from this EIS, the NNSA also has prepared a separate analysis of increasing production activities at LANL.

Comments

1. Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) did not disclose, discuss and/or quantify various environmental legal matters that could have a material impact on its Proposed Action.

Under the Proposed Action, NNSA states that a significant quantities of TRU [transuranic] waste could be generated at SRS and shipped to WIPP [Waste Isolation Pilot Plant] for disposal. It is estimated that approximately 31,350 cubic meters of TRU waste could be generated over the life of the project (i.e., 50 years) at SRS, assuming a production rate of 50 pits per year. In addition, approximately 5,350 cubic meters of TRU waste could be generated over the life of the project (i.e.,

50 years) at LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory], assuming a production rate of 30 pits per year.

The available capacity of WIPP would accommodate the conservatively estimated TRU waste that could be generated over the next 50 years. NNSA further explained that the Proposed Action would represent an increase of 14 to 21 percent in shipments to the WIPP from SRS over current planning.

The DOE submitted a request to modify the NMED WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to differentiate between the way waste volumes was defined versus the way the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) waste volume (175,564 cubic meters) was calculated and tracked. In December 2018, the NMED approved the DOEs request to modify the existing WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit and in January of 2019 the DOE fully implemented the change in the method of tracking, reporting, and recording the volumes of generated waste. The DOE used this approved Volume of Record method to calculate the estimated shipments and emplacement in WIPP from SRS in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina (EIS). It is important to note that also in January 2019 this modification to the WIPP Permit was appealed. There has been no action on this appeal by the courts. Should the approval of the permit modification be overturned by the courts, the volume of waste shipped from SRS for emplacement at the WIPP would constitute a greater percentage of the LWA volume. The DOE and NNSA must make available the volumetric contribution of all defense waste and environmental legacy waste estimated for the WIPP for SRS and all other DOE and NNSA sites around the U.S. which plan to utilize the WIPP. The DOE and NNSA must update this information on a periodic basis (i.e., quarterly).

2

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION COMMENTS MAY 18, 2020 Additionally, the April 2020 draft EIS does not discuss the November 2019 settlement between the DOE and the State of Idaho related to Idaho National Laboratories and the associated impacts of how the DOE prioritizes shipments and emplacement at WIPP. The total volume of emplaced and future waste shipments is expected to exceed the legislated volume capacity for WIPP (National Academy of Sciences Review of Department of Energys Plans for Disposal of Surplus Plutonium in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, April 2020). The Idaho Settlement allocates fifty-five percent (55%)

of all TRU waste shipments received at WIPP for Idaho. Depending on how the DOE prioritizes future waste shipments across the complex, other facilities around the U.S., including LANL, will need to store remediated legacy waste and/or delay remediating legacy waste. The State of New Mexico objects to the DOE prioritizing defense waste over remediating and emplacing legacy contamination at the WIPP, particularly in the state that hosts and regulates the WIPP.

The DOE and NNSA failed to disclose, discuss and/or quantify various environmental legal matters that will have a material impact on legacy contamination and risk to communities.

2. DOE and NNSA failed to contemplate the successful emplacement of TRU waste at the WIPP due to limitations of New Mexico transportation infrastructure (i.e., highways and roads).

At pit production rates of 50 to 80 pits per year, the SRS shipments of TRU waste to the WIPP are expected to be about 106 to 156 annually. The additional waste shipments represent increases of 14 to 21 percent over current planning.

The shipments of waste from SRS travel across New Mexicos designated WIPP highways. Due to the significant industrialization in Southeast New Mexico, there is a significant increase in traffic and degradation of road conditions. Further, there has been a significant increase in motor vehicle crashes along designated WIPP highways. The severity of such motor vehicle crashes has also increased due to the volume of large trucks using these roadways. The greatest concentration of crashes involving heavy duty trucks is along WIPP designated routes due to road conditions.

The DOE and NNSA acknowledge that a major investment in facility maintenance and infrastructure repair recapitalization and modernization is necessary to prevent costly failures and to continue to safely perform mission requirements. Just as the WIPP facility has exceeded its design life and needs regular upgrades and maintenance (DOE Carlsbad Field Office Strategic Plan 2019-2024, August 2019), the roads in New Mexico also need regular upgrades and maintenance to ensure safe transport of shipments to WIPP and prevent catastrophic consequences to human health and the environment.

To mitigate risk, the DOE and NNSA must reinstate funding to the State of New Mexico as authorized in Section 15 of the LWA and provide an annual appropriation of $31.5 million in federal fiscal year 2021 and subsequently indexed for inflation for the remaining useful life of the WIPP. This LWA funding is a necessary infrastructure investment to minimize risk of radiological and hazardous waste releases that could impact public health and safety of New Mexicans, as well as the environment.

Further, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and New Mexicos Hazardous Waste Act (HWA) gives NMED the authority to control hazardous waste from the cradle-to-grave. This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste

[emphasis added]. As DOE states in the draft EIS, the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 waives sovereign immunity for federal facilities under RCRA and requires DOE to conduct an inventory and develop a treatment plan for mixed wastes. The WIPP is a permitted by NMED pursuant to federal and state law for the management of mixed wastes.

The DOE and NNSA failed to quantify the risk, impacts, and costs associated with the successful 3

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION COMMENTS MAY 18, 2020 emplacement of SRS wastes at the WIPP in the draft EIS. Prior to implementing the Proposed Action and increasing shipments on New Mexico on designated WIPP highways, the State of New Mexico requests the DOE and NNSA conduct such an analysis and share the results with the Governor of New Mexico, Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Transportation, the Secretary of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, and the Secretary of the NMED.

3. New Mexico water sources and water supply systems must be protected from accidental releases of radioactive materials that may occur along transportation routes in the state.

According to Figure 4-4 in the draft EIS, TRU waste materials would be shipped along U.S. Highway 285, state highways, and local roads to the WIPP in southeastern New Mexico. Additionally, plutonium, beryllium, and low-level radioactive wastes could potentially be transported between South Carolina and LANL, Nevada National Security Site, and/or a commercial facility in Utah along Interstates 25 and 40, U.S. Highway 285, and several state highways and local roads. In New Mexico, there are 156 regulated public surface or groundwater systems (PWS) located within one mile of these transportation corridors.

If the Proposed Action is implemented, it is critical that the packaging and transport regulations and emergency response protocols described in Section 3.12 of the draft EIS are followed to the greatest extent possible in order to protect water sources and water supply systems from accidental releases of radioactive materials.

4. Given the disproportionate burden of public health and environmental risks that the State of New Mexico bears related to nuclear energy and weapons programs, every aspect of the Proposed Action must provide the highest level of protection to New Mexico citizens, including use of best available technology in these safeguards.

Uranium mining and milling, legacy contamination at national laboratories, disposal of defense waste at WIPP, and the proposed indefinite storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel has long created risks to public health and the environment in the State of New Mexico that are disproportionately greater than such risks to the general population of the United States. This most recent Proposed Action, for example, includes transport of plutonium metal from Los Alamos National Laboratory to the SRS, and the transport of plutonium pit waste from SRS back to New Mexico for disposal at the WIPP.

New Mexico contains significantly greater percentages of Hispanic or Latino and American Indian residents, as well as people living in poverty, than in the United States general population (see Table 1: New Mexico Demographics Data, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219).

Table 1: New Mexico Demographics Data Demographic United States New Mexico Hispanic or Latino 18.3% 49.1%

American Indian 1.3% 10.9%

Persons in poverty 11.8% 19.5%

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, states, . each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 4

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION COMMENTS MAY 18, 2020 populations and low-income populations of the United States.

The draft EIS fails to demonstrate that the Proposed Action will achieve environmental justice for the high percentage of minority and low-income populations in the State of New Mexico that have already suffered disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of U.S.

Department of Energy programs. Environmental justice deficiencies in the draft EIS include:

a. Failure to identify and discuss vulnerable populations in New Mexico;

b. Failure to identify and evaluate the cumulative history of adverse human health and environmental effects on New Mexicos vulnerable populations;

c. Failure to evaluate release scenarios from the Proposed Action, such as transportation accidents, that might adversely affect vulnerable populations in New Mexico; and

d. Repeated, yet unsubstantiated, assertions that cumulative environmental impacts from the Proposed Action would be either not notable or not expected.

The environmental justice deficiencies in the draft EIS must be corrected by preparation of a proper risk assessment that evaluates all potential release scenarios and that quantifies incident-specific and cumulative impacts to vulnerable populations in New Mexico. In accordance with Executive Order 12898, every aspect of the Proposed Action must provide the highest level of protection to New Mexico citizens, including use of best available technology in these safeguards.

5. Disposal of plutonium pit waste at the WIPP must be done in compliance with existing laws, permits, settlements and acceptance criteria.

The disposal of SRS TRU waste at the WIPP site must conform to the following requirements:

a. Future waste streams must meet requirements in the DOE WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria, the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Waste Analysis Plan, and the WIPP Transportation Safety Plan Implementation Guide;

b. DOE must adhere to the limits on types and quantity of waste imposed by the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended by Public Law No. 104-201 (1996); and

c. Legacy waste, particularly from LANL, must remain a high priority for disposal at the WIPP.

5