ML20179A342

Comment (2082) E-mail Regarding Holtec-CISF Draft EIS

ML20179A342
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	06/23/2020
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
85FR16150
Download: ML20179A342 (2)

Text

From: Jan Boudart <janboudart1@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 11:36 PM To: Holtec-CISFEIS Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket Number NRC 2018-0052 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact statement prepared for the Eddy/Lea CIS in New Mexico. Docket ID NRC 2018-0052 My comments are confined to section 3.12.3 Titled: Radiation Protection Standards It is very hard to convert the sterile language of this paragraph into terms that apply to human beings. In fact, there seems to be no particular human situation to which this does apply. No subject/recipient of radiation is mentioned; so in its absence Im assuming reference man. (OxfordReference.com) Thus you are (1) referring to the cancer rate for a man between 20-24, 5 feet 8 inches tall, weighing 154 lb. who has been shown to be at the stage in the human life cycle that is least susceptible to radiation; (2) you are ignoring all illnesses in addition to cancer caused by background plus the small increase you claim, and (3) you are not counting the rest of the human, animal and plant life cycles that are affected by radiation at least as much as this healthy human male.

And even more affected than reference man will be the rest of all creatures life cycles. You dont mention that for 2 reference men who gets cancer, 3 reference women, ten little boys and twenty little girls will get cancer over their lifetimes. This according to the Life Span study done on survivors of Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

You say nothing of the effect of radiation on the fetus of all animal species. In addition, plants and the progeny of all biota will exhibit the effects. And you are ignoring the diaspora of radiation effects through transportation of radioactive packages thru towns and cities like Chicago where I live.

The paragraphs in section 3.12.3 are opaque on how the biota surrounding the Holtec CIS in New Mexico will be protected on the theory that the radiation will be too small for the surrounds to need protection. But why subject the biosphere to more radiation in the sensitive and beautiful New Mexico countryside? As Ian Zibarte says in yesterdays letter to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, . . . radioactive fallout destroyed the delicate high-desert flora and fauna creating hugh vulnerabilities where noxious and invasive plant species took hold.

This ends my comments on Section 3.12.3.Radiation Protection Standards

Federal Register Notice: 85FR16150 Comment Number: 2082 Mail Envelope Properties (CAAAQWA8TDeeGZkYA+UTtk++gDzJ+ndX5b4zfiwx23buH0UttGg)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Docket Number NRC 2018-0052 Sent Date: 6/23/2020 11:36:05 PM Received Date: 6/23/2020 11:36:23 PM From: Jan Boudart Created By: janboudart1@gmail.com Recipients:

Post Office: mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2330 6/23/2020 11:36:23 PM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received: