Search
JOIN OUR NETWORK

     

     

 

 

Centralized Storage

With the scientifically unsound proposed Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump now canceled, the danger of "interim" storage threatens. This means that radioactive waste could be "temporarily" parked in open air lots, vulnerable to accident and attack, while a new repository site is sought.

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

Entries by admin (702)

Monday
Sep212020

COMMENTS OF SIERRA CLUB REGARDING THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR APPLICATION BY HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL FOR A LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A CONSOLIDATED INTERIM STORAGE FACILITY FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Monday
Sep212020

Please submit public comments opposing the ISP/WCS CISF in TX by Nov. 3!

WCS/ISP DEIS: Ideas for comments you can use to write your own for submission to NRC

<http://archive.beyondnuclear.org/centralized-storage/2020/5/27/wcsisp-deis-ideas-for-comments-you-can-use-to-write-your-own.html>

Monday
Sep212020

Beyond Nuclear's 26th set of public comments, re: Docket ID NRC-2018-0052, re: NRC's Holtec/ELEA CISF DEIS

As submitted via the SEED Coalition webform:

<https://actionnetwork.org/letters/halt-holtec?clear_id=true&source=direct_link>

Dear NRC Commissioners and Staff,

 This public comment is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Docket ID NRC-2018-0052) regarding Holtec International’s application for a license to build and operate a “Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste” (NUREG-2237).

 
I oppose Holtec’s proposal and ask that the NRC halt its licensing in order to protect public health and safety, the environment and our economy. It appears from Draft Environmental Impact Statement and other license documents that there would be no dry cask transfer facility at the proposed site, which means there would be no way to repackage waste. The site is not designed for long term disposal, but a dangerous de facto permanent site could result if waste casks or canisters are damaged or corroded and cannot be moved. Consolidated Interim Storage in Texas is also unacceptable. I support and adopt the comments raised by the Nuclear Issues Study Group based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which are as follows:

 
1. New Mexico Does Not Consent

The motto of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is “Protecting People and the Environment,” yet the NRC’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Holtec project does neither. Instead, the NRC’s inadequate draft EIS puts people, wildlife and precious water resources at significant and potentially, deadly risk by failing to heed the concerns of the community. We join the All Pueblo Council of Governors, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, more than a dozen county and city governments, the Alliance for Environmental Strategies, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, the Permian Basin Coalition of Land & Royalty Owners and Operators, the Nuclear Issues Study Group, and the more than 30,000 residents who commented during the 2018 scoping period in vehemently opposing bringing the nation’s high level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants to our communities. We do not consent to becoming a nuclear wasteland for millions of years.

 
2. Cumulative Impacts

The DEIS is inadequate because it fails to consider cumulative impacts from the damage the nuclear industry has already inflicted on New Mexicans for the past 75 years: uranium mining and milling in the northwest on indigenous Diné and Pueblo lands, including the 1979 Churchrock Disaster; radioactive contamination to Tewa lands and people from the Manhattan project in the Los Alamos area; fallout on downwinders from the Trinity Test in the Tularosa basin; the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, which has already accidentally released dangerous amounts of radiation and now wants to expand; the URENCO uranium enrichment plant in Eunice; the world’s largest nuclear warhead stockpile on the edge of Albuquerque; and the toxic threat to Albuquerque’s aquifer by the Mixed Waste Landfill.

 
Rather than adding 173,600 metric tons of high level radioactive waste to a state that has already been grossly overburdened, the United States should be directing its resources towards cleaning up the contamination already present in our communities, just compensation, and holistic community health studies. The DEIS also fails to account for cumulative impacts from the other proposal for Consolidated Interim Storage, approximately forty miles east at the current Waste Control Specialists low-level radioactive waste site.

 
3. Environmental Racism

It’s no coincidence that the United States wants to make New Mexico a nuclear wasteland. It ranks as one of the poorest states and is a majority minority state, with more Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) residents than white residents. For the NRC to determine that nuclear waste which will threaten life for millions of years would have “small” or “no environmental impact” is a blatant violation of environmental justice principles and is environmental racism in action. We do not give our own government license to allow a private industry to further contaminate our home or to expand the massive nuclear burden we already bear.

 
4. Threats to Cultural Properties & Historic Sites

Holtec International and the NRC would have us believe that the site is a desolate, uninhabited place with “no historic value or significance.” This statement is completely false and without merit. The site is located near or on two lagunas or playa lakes: Laguna Gatuna and Laguna Plata. Lagune Plata is an archaeological district that has been extensively studied for decades. Two sites near Laguna Gatuna, where the nuclear waste is proposed to be stored, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeologists have found a plethora of evidence of the Jornada Mogollon people, dating from 200 AD, 700 AD, and 1200 AD. More than 200 archeological sites are located within six miles of the proposed nuclear waste dump. Laguna Gatuna, while often dry, fills with water after monsoon rains, attracting a variety of wildlife and hunters for millenia. The Hopi and Mescalero Apache nations have identified the area as culturally significant to them, and the Hopi nation has informed the NRC that traditional cultural properties could be adversely affected if this project proceeds. The site where Holtec wants to dump tens of thousands of tons of radioactive waste has profound historic value and significance.

 
5. Threats to Water & Wildlife

The impact of this forever deadly nuclear waste would have devastating consequences on wildlife including threatened species that rely on the lagunas for drinking water and surrounding area as a critical habitat, including the Lesser Prairie Chicken, and the Dune Sagebrush Lizard. Agencies such as U.S. Fish & Wildlife, New Mexico Game & Fish, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New Mexico Environment Dept (NMED) have all gone on record attesting to the significance of Laguna Gatuna for migratory birds, and have argued that it should be designated permanently as a Water of the United States (WOTUS), which would make it eligible for protection under the Clean Water Act.

 
6. Threats from Transporting Irradiated Nuclear Fuel  

Not only New Mexico would be adversely impacted by the Holtec project: all communities along the transportation routes between nuclear power plants and the Holtec proposed site would be threatened by radiation from the rail cars, and from the devastating financial and environmental damage if an accident or act of malice should occur. Studies have shown that one accident is likely to occur for every 10,000 shipments. It is irresponsible and dangerous for NRC to avoid inclusion of these mammoth risks and liability in its DEIS for Holtec’s application.

 
7. Holtec’s Project is Illegal

Finally, under current U.S. law, this project is illegal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, does not allow the federal government to take title to the high level radioactive waste until a permanent geologic repository is operating. So the federal government cannot pay for transportation and storage of the waste as Holtec wants. The license cannot be issued until either a permanent repository is operating, or U.S. law is changed. For all the above reasons and more, I declare that the DEIS for Holtec’s application is inadequate and further that the license for a high level radioactive waste storage facility should be denied. In conclusion, high level nuclear waste from nuclear power plants around the U.S. should not be brought to New Mexico–it should be isolated on or near the current site until there is an environmentally just and scientifically sound option available.

8. Holtec's Site is Geologically Unstable

Earthquakes threaten the site, both natural earthquakes and artificial earthquakes (due to fossil fuel extraction and fossil fuel waste deep well injection activities). There is even evidence of large-scale subsidence across the vast Permian Basin, due to fossil fuel extraction. And in the immediate vicinity of the Holtec site, potash mining in the immediate area risks significant subsidence events. And as Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd., and the Permian Basin Land & Royalty Owners have warned NRC in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board licensing proceedings, there is also a significant risk of sinkhole formation near or even at the site, or along impacted transport routes. A large sinkhole on the south side of Carlsbad threatens to engulf a state highway, as well as a railway that could be used for inbound or outbound irradiated nuclear fuel shipments associated with Holtec's CISF.

9. NRC's DEIS is based on Holtec's ER (Environmental Report). As shown by Figure 4.9.1 on Page 4-40 of Holtec's ER (Rev. 0), TRANSPORTATION ROUTES FOR SNF, all outbound shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel leaving the Holtec CISF in NM, bound for Yucca Mountain, NV for permanent disposal, would pass through not only southeastern NM, but also TX and OK, en route to NV. This is shown by the dark green light, indicating an overlap of light green and blue routes, or in other words, an overlap of "Maine Yankee to CISF" (blue) and "CISF to Yucca Mountain" (light green) routes. But the blue "Maine Yankee to CISF" route would be true of a very many of the reactor-to-CISF shipping routes from the eastern half of the United States. And of course the "CISF to Yucca Mountain" light green route would apply to every single shipment from the CISF to Yucca, including those that came from any atomic reactor origin site in the country, such as those in the West. One significance of all this is that southeastern NM, as well as a long swath of TX (including the densely populated Dallas/Fort Worth metro region), and central OK from its southern border to nearly its northern border (including the Oklahoma City metro region) would be hit coming and going. These communities would be hit with inbound shipment to Holtec's CISF, from the east (and half of all reactors, and hence commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, are in the eastern half of the country; in fact, 75% are east of the Mississippi River). And they would also be hit with outbound, CISF to Yucca dump shipments. There could be 80,000 of these outbound shipments, as the 10,000 inbound canisters may very well have to be broken up into smaller sized TADs (Transport, Aging, and Disposal casks). DOE has indicated requiring TADs for disposal at Yucca, and DOE has also expressed its unwillingness to do the rail-sized cask to TAD transfers at the Yucca site itself (or anywhere else, for that matter). Those 80,000 TAD shipments from Holtec's CISF to the Yucca repository represent a significant increase in the probability for a transport accident or attack, as well as increased potential for "routine/incident-free" shipment gamma and neutron radiation dose impacts on people in transport corridor communities, because 80,000 outbound shipments is eight times more than the 10,000 inbound shipments -- meaning accidents and attacks are that much more likely to happen (risk probability increasing proportionally with the number of "rolls of the dice," that is, shipment numbers).

10. Re: the Yucca Mountain, Nevada dump, it is outrageous that both Holtec and NRC have just assumed it is going to open and operate. The Yucca dump scheme violates the following basic criteria for safe sound repository siting and development, as I've detailed in previous comments: 1.) the Yucca dump would be illegal, as it would violate the "peace and friendship" Treaty of Ruby Valley, signed by the U.S. government with the Western Shoshone in 1863; 2.) the Yucca dump would violate consent-based siting; 3.) the Yucca dump would be scientifically unsuitable; 4.) the Yucca dump would be environmentally unjust; 5.) the Yucca dump would violate principles of regional equity (it would signify East dumping on West); 6.) the Yucca dump would exacerbate transport risks; and 7.) the Yucca dump would violate principles of inter-generational equity, due to a 6.66-fold increase in "allowable" or "permissible" radiation exposure to "dose receptors" (that is, people downstream, including the Timbisha Shoshone in Death Valley, CA), 10,000 years post-burial.

Sincerely,

Kay Drey, Board of Directors President, Beyond Nuclear

and

Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Beyond Nuclear

Sunday
Sep202020

Organizational sign-on letter, submitted as public comment on NRC's DEIS, opposing Holtec's highly radioactive waste Consolidated Interim Storage Facility targeting NM

Submitted via: <Holtec-CISFEIS@nrc.gov>

 

Subject: Docket ID NRC-2018-0052, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Public Comment

 

Dear NRC Commissioners and Staff,

This public comment is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Docket ID NRC-2018-0052) regarding Holtec International’s application for a license to build and operate a “Consolidated Interim Storage Facility [CISF] for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste” (NUREG-2237).

The undersigned organizations oppose Holtec’s proposal and ask that the NRC halt its licensing in order to protect public health and safety, the environment and our economy. It appears from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and other license application documents that there would be no dry cask transfer facility (Dry Transfer System, DTS) at the proposed site, which means there would be no way to repackage waste. The site is not designed for long term disposal, but a dangerous de facto permanent site could result if waste casks or canisters are damaged or corroded and cannot be moved.

Consolidated Interim Storage in Texas is also unacceptable. Our groups support and adopt the comments raised by the Nuclear Issues Study Group based in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which are as follows:

 

1) New Mexico Does Not Consent The motto of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is “Protecting People and the Environment,” yet the NRC’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Holtec project does neither. Instead, the NRC’s inadequate Draft EIS puts people, wildlife and precious water resources at significant and potentially, deadly risk by failing to heed the concerns of the community. We join the All Pueblo Council of Governors, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, New Mexico State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, more than a dozen county and city governments, the Alliance for Environmental Strategies, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, the Permian Basin Coalition of Land & Royalty Owners and Operators, the Nuclear Issues Study Group, and the more than 30,000 residents who commented during the NRC's 2018 environmental scoping period in vehemently opposing bringing the nation’s high level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants through our communities to New Mexico. We do not consent to New Mexico becoming a nuclear wasteland for millions of years. 

2) Cumulative Impacts The DEIS is inadequate because it fails to consider cumulative impacts from the damage the nuclear industry has already inflicted on New Mexicans for the past 75 years: uranium mining and milling in the northwest on indigenous Diné and Pueblo lands, including the 1979 Church Rock Disaster; radioactive contamination to Tewa lands and people since the Manhattan Project in the Los Alamos area; fallout on downwinders from the Trinity Test in the Tularosa Basin; the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, which has already accidentally released dangerous amounts of radiation and now wants to expand; the URENCO uranium enrichment plant in Eunice; the world’s largest nuclear warhead stockpile on the edge of Albuquerque; and the toxic threat to Albuquerque’s aquifer by the Mixed Waste Landfill. Rather than adding 173,600 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste to a state that has already been grossly overburdened, the United States should be directing its resources towards: cleaning up the contamination already present in New Mexico communities; just compensation; and holistic community health studies. The DEIS also fails to account for cumulative impacts from the other proposal for Consolidated Interim Storage, approximately forty miles east at the current Waste Control Specialists low-level radioactive waste dump in Andrews County, Texas, very near Eunice, New Mexico. 

3) Environmental Racism It’s no coincidence that the United States wants to make New Mexico a nuclear wasteland. It ranks as one of the poorest states and is a majority minority state, with more Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) residents than white residents. For the NRC to determine that nuclear waste which will threaten life for millions of years would have “small” or “no environmental impact” is a blatant violation of environmental justice principles and is environmental racism in action. We do not give our own government license to allow a private industry to further contaminate New Mexicans' home or to expand the massive nuclear burden New Mexicans already bear. 

4) Threats to Cultural Properties & Historic Sites Holtec International and the NRC would have us believe that the site is a desolate, uninhabited place with “no historic value or significance.” This statement is completely false and without merit. The site is located near or on two lagunas or playa lakes: Laguna Gatuna and Laguna Plata. Laguna Plata is an archaeological district that has been extensively studied for decades. Two sites near Laguna Gatuna, where the nuclear waste is proposed to be stored, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeologists have found a plethora of evidence of the Jornada Mogollon people, dating from 200 AD, 700 AD, and 1200 AD. More than 200 archeological sites are located within six miles of the proposed nuclear waste dump. Laguna Gatuna, while often dry, fills with water after monsoon rains, attracting a variety of wildlife and hunters for millenia. The Hopi and Mescalero Apache nations have identified the area as culturally significant to them, and the Hopi nation has informed the NRC that traditional cultural properties could be adversely affected if this project proceeds. The site where Holtec wants to dump tens of thousands of tons of radioactive waste has profound historic value and significance. 
 
5) Threats to Water & Wildlife The impact of this forever deadly nuclear waste would have devastating consequences on wildlife including threatened species that rely on the lagunas for drinking water and the surrounding area as a critical habitat, including the Lesser Prairie Chicken, and the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. Agencies such as U.S. Fish & Wildlife, New Mexico Game & Fish, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have all gone on record attesting to the significance of Laguna Gatuna for migratory birds, and have argued that it should be designated permanently as a Water of the United States (WOTUS), which would make it eligible for protection under the Clean Water Act. 

6) Threats from Transporting Irradiated Nuclear Fuel  Not only New Mexico would be adversely impacted by the Holtec project: all communities along the transportation routes between nuclear power plants and Holtec's proposed CISF site would be threatened by radiation from the rail cars, and from the devastating financial and environmental damage if an accident or act of malice should occur. Studies have shown that one accident is likely to occur for every 10,000 shipments. It is irresponsible and dangerous for NRC to avoid adequate inclusion (a "hard look," as legally required by the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA) of these mammoth risks and liabilities in its DEIS for Holtec’s application. 

7) Holtec’s Project is Illegal Finally, under current U.S. law, this project is illegal. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, does not allow the federal government to take title to the high-level radioactive waste (commercial irradiated nuclear fuel) until a permanent geologic repository is operating. So the federal government cannot pay for transportation and storage of the waste as Holtec wants. Legally, the license cannot be issued until a permanent repository is operating.
****
For all the above reasons and more, we declare that the DEIS for Holtec’s application is inadequate and further that the license for a high-level radioactive waste storage facility should be denied. In conclusion, high-level nuclear waste from nuclear power plants around the U.S. should not be brought to New Mexico – it should be isolated on or near the current nuclear power plant site, in Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS), until there is an environmentally just and scientifically sound option available.
****
Sincerely,
Alaska's Big Village Network
Nikos Pastos, Environmental Sociologist, Anchorage, AK
****
Alliance for Environmental Strategies
Rose Gardner, Co-Founder, Eunice, NM
****
Alliance for a Green Economy (AGREE)
Jessica Azulay, Executive Director, Syracuse, NY
****
Alliance to Halt Fermi 3
Keith Gunter, Board Chair, Livonia, MI
****
Atlanta Grandmothers for Peace
Bobbie Paul, Treasurer, Atlanta, GA
****
Baltimore Phil Berrigan Memorial Chapter Veterans for Peace
Ellen E. Barfield, Co-Founder & Coordinator, Baltimore, MD
****
Beyond Nuclear
Kay Drey, President of the Board of Directors, & Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist, Takoma Park, MD
****
Cape Downwinders
Diane Turco, Director, South Harwich, MA
****
Citizen Action New Mexico
Dave McCoy, J.D., Executive Director, Albuquerque, NM
****
Citizen Power, Inc.
David Hughes, President, Pittsburgh, PA
****
Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination
Chance Hunt, Chairman of the Board, Lake, MI
****
Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping (CARD)
Janet Greenwald, Dixon, NM
****
Citizens Awareness Network
Deb Katz, Executive Director, Shelburne Falls, MA
****
Citizens' Environmental Coalition
Barbara Warren, Executive Director, Cuddebackville, NY
****
Citizens' Resistance at Fermi Two (CRAFT)
Jesse DeerInWater, Community Organizer, Redford, MI
****
Climate Justice Committee of CNY Solidarity Coalition
Katherine Burns, Chairperson, Syracuse, NY
****
Coalition Against Nukes
Laura Lynch, Campaign Coordinator, New York, NY
****
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes
Michael J. Keegan, Chairperson, Monroe, MI
****
Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes
Joanne Hameister, Contact, Springville, NY
****
Concerned Citizens of Lacey Coalition
Paul Dressler & Ron Martyn, Co-Chairs, Lacey Township, NJ
****
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
Joni Arends, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Santa Fe, NM
****
Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety (CCSS)
Ernest Fuller, Vice Chairman, Saxton, PA
****
Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone
Nancy Burton, Director, Redding, CT
****
Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy (CIECP)
Michel Lee, Esq., Chairman, Scarsdale, NY
****
Crabshell Alliance
Regina Minniss, Treasurer, Baltimore, MD
****
Don't Waste Arizona
Stephen Brittle, President, Phoenix, AZ
****
Don't Waste Michigan
Alice Hirt, Co-Chair, Holland, MI
****
Eco-Logic, WBAI FM
Ken Gale, Producer, New York, NY
****
Ecological Options Network
Mary Beth Brangan, Co-Director, Bolinas, CA
****
Energía Mía
Alice Canestaro-Garcia, Communications Manager, San Antonio, TX
****
Environmental Justice Taskforce of the Western New York Peace Center
Charley Bowman, Chair, Buffalo, NY
****
Fairewinds Energy Education
Maggie Gundersen, Founder, Charleston, SC
****
Food & Water Action

Mitch Jones, Policy Director, Washington, D.C.

****

Freshwater Future

Kristy Meyer, M.S., Associate Director, Petoskey, MI

****

Friends of Bruce

Eugene Bourgeois, Inverhuron, Ontario, Canada
****
GA WAND (Georgia Women's Action for New Directions)
Cee'Cee' Anderson, Atlanta, GA
****
Great Lakes Environmental Alliance (GLEA)
Tanya Keefe, Board Chair, Port Huron, MI
****
Green State Solutions
Mike Carberry, Founding Director, Iowa City, IA
****
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Bradley Angel, Executive Director, San Francisco, CA
****
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah
Scott Williams, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director, Salt Lake City, UT
****
Heart of America Northwest
Peggy Maze Johnson, Board Member, Seattle, WA
****
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director, Beacon, NY
****
Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition (IPSEC)
Margo Schepart & Judy Allen, Steering Committee Members, Yorktown Heights & Putnam Valley, NY
****
Indigenous Rights Center.Org
Norman Patrick Brown and Peter Clark, Directors, Albuquerque, NM
****
League of Women Voters of Buffalo/Niagara
Joan T. Parks, President, Buffalo, NY
****
Lone Tree Council
Terry Miller, Chair, Bay City, MI
****
Los Angeles Alliance for Survival
Jerry Rubin, Director, Santa Monica, CA
****
Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World
Mari Inoue, Co-Founding Member, New York, NY
****
Michigan Stop the Nuclear Bombs Campaign
Vic Macks, Steering Committee, St. Clair Shores, MI
****
Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment (MASE)
Susan Gordon, Coordinator, Albuquerque, NM
****
National Nuclear Workers for Justice (NNWJ)
Vina Colley, Co-Founder, Portsmouth, OH
****
Native Community Action Council
Ian Zabarte, Secretary, Las Vegas, NV
****
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ
Donald B. Clark, Convener
****
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Judy Treichel, Executive Director, Las Vegas, NV
****
New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light
Sister Joan Brown, Rochester Franciscan Sisters, Albuquerque, NM
****
New York Congressional District-16 Indivisible Environment Committee
Iris Hiskey Arno and Natalie Polvere, co-chairs, Bronx and Westchester, NY
****
North American Water Office
George Crocker, Executive Director, and Lea Foushee, Environmental Justice Director, Lake Elmo, MN
****
Northeast New Mexicans United Against Nuclear Waste
Ed & Patty Hughs, Members, Quay County, NM
****
Northwatch
Brennain Lloyd, Project Coordinator, North Bay, Ontario, Canada
****
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Rick Wayman, CEO, Santa Barbara, CA
****
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS)
David A. Kraft, Director, Chicago, IL
****
Nuclear Free World Committee of the Dallas Peace and Justice Center
Mavis Belisle and Lon Burnam, Co-Chairs, Dallas, TX
****
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)
Diane D'Arrigo, Director, Radioactive Waste Project, Takoma Park, MD
****
Nuclear Issues Study Group (NISG)
Leona Morgan, Coordinator, Albuquerque, NM
****
The Nuclear Resister
Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa, Coordinators, Tucson, AZ
****
Nuclear Watch New Mexico
Jay Coghlan, Executive Director, Santa Fe, NM
****
Nuclear Watch South
Glenn Carroll, Coordinator, Atlanta, GA
****
Nukewatch
John LaForge & Kelly Lundeen, Co-Directors, Luck, WI
****
NYC Safe Energy Campaign
Ken Gale, Founder, NYC, NY
****
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
Kevin Collins, President, Knoxville, TN
****
Occupy Bergen County
Sally Jane Gellert, Bergen County, NJ
****
On Behalf of Planet Earth
Sheila Parks, EdD, Founder, Watertown, MA
****
Partnership for Earth Spirituality
Sister Marlene Perrotte, Albuquerque, NM
****
Peace Action of Wisconsin
Pamela Richard, Office Manager, Milwaukee, WI
****
The Peace Farm
Lon Burnam, Convenor, Amarillo, TX
****
PeaceWorks Kansas City
Chris Mann, Henry Stoever, & Sunny J. Hamrick, Co-Chairs, Kansas City Metro Area, KS & MO
****
Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), National
Jeff Carter, Executive Director, Washington, D.C.
****
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Kansas City
Ann Suellentrop, Project Director, Kansas City, KS
****
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles
Denise Duffield, Associate Director, Los Angeles, CA
****
Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee
Faye More, Chair, Port Hope, Ontario, Canada
****
Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety & Security (PRESS)
Vina Colley, President, Portsmouth, OH
****
Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future
Ellen Thomas, Tryon, NC & Washington, D.C.
****
Protect Andrews
Elizabeth Padilla, Director, Andrews, TX
****
Public Citizen, National
Tyson Slocum, Director, Energy Program, Washington, D.C.
****
Public Citizen Texas Office
Adrian Shelley, Texas Office Director, Austin, TX
****
Redwood Alliance
Michael Welch, Volunteer, Arcata, CA
****
Safe Energy Rights Group (SEnRG)
Nancy Vann, President, Peekskill, NY
****
San Clemente Green
Gary Headrick, Co-Founder, San Clemente, CA
****
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
Robert M. Gould, M.D., President, San Francisco, CA
****
San Luis Obispo (SLO) Mothers for Peace
Molly Johnson, Member of the Board, San Luis Obispo, CA
****
Shut Down Indian Point Now
Catherine Skopic, Chair, New York City, NY
****
Sierra Club
Wallace L. Taylor, Counsel, Cedar Rapids, IA
****
Sisters of Mercy
Sister Marlene Perrotte, Albuquerque, NM
****
Snake River Alliance
Holly Harris, Executive Director, Boise, ID
****
SouthWest Organizing Project (SWOP)
Alejandria Lyons, Environmental Justice Organizer, Albuquerque, NM
****
Stand Up/Save Lives Campaign
Maureen Headington, President, Burr Ridge, IL
****
Straits Area Concerned Citizens for Peace, Justice and the Environment
David & Anabel Dwyer, Members, Mackinaw City, MI
****
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
Karen Hadden, Executive Director, Austin, TX
****
Syracuse Cultural Workers
Andy Mager, Sales Manager and Social Movements Liaison, Syracuse, NY
****
Syracuse Peace Council
Carol Baum, Organizer, Syracuse, NY
****
Tennessee Environmental Council
Don Safer, Board Member, Nashville, TN
****
Tewa Women United, Environmental Health and Justice Program
Beata Tsosie, Coordinator, Española, NM
****
Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
Eric Epstein, Chairman, Harrisburg, PA
****
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy
Terry Lodge, Convenor, Toledo, OH
****
Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
Marylia Kelley, Executive Director, Livermore, CA
****
Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium
Tina Cordova, Co-Founder, Albuquerque, NM
****
Uranium Watch
Sarah Fields, Program Director, Monticello, UT
****
Valley Watch, Inc.
John Blair, President, Evansville, IN
****
Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance (VYDA)
Debra Stoleroff, Steering Committee Chair, Montpelier, VT
****
Veterans for Peace, Santa Fe, NM Chapter
Ken Mayers, Chapter Secretary, Santa Fe, NM
****
Wheeler Peak Progressives
Janet Warner, Angel Fire, NM
****
Western New York Environmental Alliance
Linda Schneekloth, Buffalo, NY
****
Women Changing the World
Cee'Cee' Anderson, Atlanta, GA
****
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)-U.S.
Darien De Lu, Board of Directors President, Sacramento, CA
Wednesday
Sep162020

Interim Storage Partners: Draft Environmental Impact Statement public comment meetings -- October 1, 6, 8, and 15

As announced by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC):

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: WCS_CISFEIS Resource <WCS_CISFEIS.Resource@nrc.gov>
Date: Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 2:54 PM
Subject: Interim Storage Partners: Draft Environmental Impact Statement public comment meetings

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is notifying you of upcoming public comment meetings for the NRC staff’s draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Interim Storage Partners’ (ISP’s) proposed Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) located in Andrews County, Texas.

The NRC staff will be holding four virtual meetings in early October 2020.  These meetings will be held on October 1, 6, 8, and 15, 2020, during which the NRC staff will present the results of its environmental analysis and then accept comments on the draft EIS.  Persons interested in attending these meetings should check the NRC’s Public Meeting Schedule Web page at https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg for additional information, agendas for the meetings, and access information for the webinar and telephone line. The NRC had planned to conduct public meetings in person near the project site; however, the staff is not able to hold the in person meetings due to the current COVID-19 public health emergency.

The draft EIS is available, along with an overview of the report in English and Spanish, from the NRC’s project website for its review of the ISP license application: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/cis/waste-control-specialist.html.

The NRC is accepting public comments on the draft EIS through November 3, 2020.  Comments can be submitted several ways:

  • Mail to the Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
  • E-mail at WCS_CISF_EIS@nrc.gov; and
  • Posting online at the federal government’s rulemaking website, using Docket ID NRC-2016-0231