Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman
Jeff Baran, Commissioner
Annie Caputo, Commissioner
David A. Wright, Commissioner
Christopher T. Hanson, Commissioner
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop O-4F00
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Via email only to Chairman@nrc.gov, CMRBARAN@nrc.gov, CMRCaputo@nrc.gov, CMRWright@nrc.gov, CMRHanson@nrc.gov
NRC Staff Contacts:
James Park, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Project Manager, James.Park@nrc.gov
Jennifer Borges, Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov
NRC Comments Address: WCS_CISF_EIS@nrc.gov
Cinthya I. Roman-Cuevas, Chief, Environmental Review Materials Branch, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, cinthya.roman@nrc.gov
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555
Via email to annette.vietti-cook@nrc.gov
SUBJECT: Docket No. 72-1050 (NRC-2016-0231), Interim Storage Partners, LLC/Waste Control Specialists, LLC Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Project (Request for indefinitely prolonged DEIS public comment period and convening of public meetings at multiple sites across Texas, as well as in other states along transport routes)
Dear NRC Commissioners:
The undersigned 60 organizations from 22 states hereby propose a significant restructuring of the present plan for public participation in, and public commenting upon, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the Interim Storage Partners/Waste Control Specialists, LLC (ISP/WCS) license application for a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for spent nuclear fuel (SNF, also known as irradiated nuclear fuel, INF -- highly radioactive waste) proposed for Andrews County, Texas. Ten of the undersigned organizations sought leave to intervene in the ISP/WCS CISF adjudicatory licensing proceeding, NRC Docket No. 72-1050 (NRC-2016-0231). Sierra Club was granted intervenor status, as well as a hearing on the merits of admissible contentions, but has since been ruled against by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) presiding over the licensing proceeding, and the proceeding terminated by the ASLB. Beyond Nuclear and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition of Texas were granted intervenor status, but were denied intervention because of a supposed lack of an admissible contention. Don’t Waste Michigan, Citizens’ Environmental Coalition, Nuclear Energy Information Service, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Leona Morgan, Public Citizen-Texas Office, and Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination were denied standing entirely.
All of the undersigned organizations hereby request that the Commission indefinitely extend, for the duration of the national COVID-19 pandemic emergency, the ongoing public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the ISP/WCS CISF proposed for development in Andrews County, west Texas. At the formal termination of the national emergency, as via a safe and effective vaccine available to all people regardless of socio-economic status, we request that the public comment period then be extended for a period of 180 days, post-pandemic. We further request that when in-person public comment meetings again become safely possible that the NRC conduct plenary-style, in-person public comment meetings in the following six Texas locations: San Antonio, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, El Paso, Midland, and Andrews. We also request that in-person public comment meetings likewise be held, post-pandemic, in more than a dozen more cities nationwide, on impacted transport corridors in states outside Texas, as listed later in this letter.
The undersigned 60 groups seek these changes in the public participation arrangements because of the serious present public health emergency, during which much of the American public is beset with concerns of maintaining individual and family health, free of the coronavirus. Americans are still facing, in unprecedented numbers, sudden dramatic economic reversals and dislocations associated with global recession or even economic depression. In fact, rather than the hoped for, hot weather, summertime lull in coronavirus cases, Texas, unfortunately, is currently an epicenter of an alarming resurgence of the highly infectious, deadly COVID-19 pandemic. Meaningful public participation in the NRC’s processing of a license for the ISP/WCS CISF, and the implementation of procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is impossible when people and their governments must address crisis-borne difficulties daily. As COVID-19 ravages major population centers and disrupts the health care continuum, it is increasingly unfair to expect citizens to perform needed research and analysis and consultation of experts in order to comment on the NRC's ISP/WCS DEIS.
Our requests in this letter are echoed by large blocs of U.S. Congress members. We are backed up by 24 Democratic U.S. Senators (including five who were campaigning for the presidency up until recently), who wrote the White House Office of Management and Budget on April 8, 2020, seeking suspensions of any deadlines on executive branch public comment periods, during this pandemic. In addition, 14 Democratic U.S. House of Representatives committee chairmen wrote a similar letter, making a similar call, to OMB on April 1, 2020.
1. The ISP/WCS CISF Project Is Unprecedented And Controversial
ISP/WCS is presently seeking an NRC license for authorization to construct and operate a CISF for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) "interim storage" on a site in Andrews County, Texas . ISP/WCS intends initially to store 500 canisters (containing 5,000 metric tons, or MT) of irradiated nuclear fuel (INF), followed by numerous additional phases of 5,000 MT each. ISP/WCS plans eventually to store 40,000 MT of SNF at the facility. Even at 40,000 MT, the CISF would easily be one of the world’s very largest INF aggregations in one place.
ISP/WCS proposes to accept more than half the total volume of SNF planned for entombment at the proposed U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Yucca Mountain geological repository, targeting Western Shoshone land in Nevada: 40,000 MT of irradiated nuclear fuel at the ISP/WCS CISF, versus 70,000 MT at Yucca Mountain. It follows that ISP/WCS's transport volume, risks, and impacts will be more than half as intense as Yucca's.
The largely-ignored or under-analyzed transportation effects of the ISP/WCS CISF would be more than half as significant as Yucca's very significant transportation impacts. And in the sense that ISP/WCS plans to transport the INF, post-"interim storage" at the CISF in TX, to the Yucca Mountain, NV dump, the CISF's transport impacts will be greater than Yucca's (40,000 MT of SNF, transported twice, versus 70,000 MT, transported once).
ISP/WCS plans long-term INF storage for up to 60 years, awaiting completion of a deep geological repository for final INF disposal (1). ISP/WCS intends to provide storage services before a repository is built (2), which if approved by the Commission would comprise a conclusive violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which is likely to continue to be opposed by intervening parties.
It further is very questionable whether the facility will operate for less than 60 years. Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (Holtec/ELEA) in New Mexico, just 39 miles away from ISP/WCS's proposed CISF, has applied for up to a 120-year license for its CISF (3); Holtec has even asserted that a CIS facility “should have a minimum service life of 300 years.” (4) And in 2019, then-Secretary of Energy Rick Perry – former Texas governor – acknowledged the possibility that the proposed Waste Control Specialists (WCS) INF CISF might de facto become the final repository for SNF, if a geological repository becomes politically or scientifically impossible. In response to questioning by U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) at a U.S. House appropriations subcommittee hearing on March 26, 2019, Perry said he and the political leaders of Andrews County, Texas, where the ISP/ WCS CISF would be located, do not object to the ISP/WCS CISF becoming a de facto permanent INF disposal site. (5) The acknowledged potential for such a momentous perversion of the interim storage concept, alone, is reason enough to extend the public comment period and its geographic reach to allow extended feedback from people and regions which would have to bear the burden of a different, “forever” mission.
2. The Present Public Comment Arrangements Are Grossly Inadequate
The NRC has granted only 120 days for public comment on the ISP/WCS CISF DEIS, (6) which contrasts sharply with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) handling of the DEIS public comment stage on the Yucca Mountain, Nevada INF geologic repository scheme DEIS. DOE accepted comments on the Yucca DEIS for 199 days, and convened 23 different public comment meetings in 2001 and 2002, scattered across the country. But for ISP/WCS's CISF – expected to contain, in less secure circumstances, more than half the SNF volume of Yucca – the NRC has yet to schedule any public comment meetings. (At the WCS CISF environmental scoping stage in 2017, only two in-person public comment meetings were held, one in Hobbs, New Mexico, and one in Andrews, Texas.)
The DOE convened half a dozen Yucca DEIS public comment meetings in Nevada and nearby parts of California, and held others in a dozen more states along transport corridors through which the INF would be shipped. Although deliberately excluded from the ISP/WCS CISF DEIS, the massive nationwide campaign of SNF shipping via barge, Legal Weight Truck (LWT), and rail, over literally millions of shipment miles, will expose most of the Lower 48 states to significant transport risks, identical to those of shipments bound for the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada targeting Western Shoshone land. Besides the in-person public meeting sites at six locations across Texas (San Antonio, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, El Paso, Midland, and Andrews), the undersigned organizations, on behalf of our members and supporters across the United States of America, request that public comment meetings be held at each of these sites, all located along one or more anticipated major INF transport routes: Atlanta; Boston; Chicago; Cleveland; Detroit; Kansas City; Miami; Minneapolis/Saint Paul; Nashville; New York/Newark; Omaha; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; San Luis Obispo, CA; St. Louis; Salt Lake City; Tampa.
The possibility of a spent nuclear fuel leak, explosion, criticality or canister breach in any of these urban areas, not to mention routine (incident-free) X-ray-like gamma and neutron radiation emissions during canister transport, surely warrants the scheduling of public comment plenaries in each location. The licensing decision for ISP/WCS's CISF requires a process that is much more visible and accessible than at present.The NRC’s concept of public involvement so far does not match the scale of policy, operational and environmental concerns raised by the proposal. There were more than 47,000 public comments submitted at the ISP/WCS CISF scoping stage, (7) over 95% of which were opposed to the plan. That degree of public interest will be eclipsed by the sponsorship of public comment meetings in transportation corridors at greater distances from west Texas. The NRC’s restrictive level of public engagement is grossly inadequate for so ambitious a project.
3. NEPA Requires Maximum Public Participation at the DEIS Stage
The NRC’s NEPA regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 51.73 require that at least 45 days be allowed for DEIS public comments. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1501.8, however, impose nuanced considerations on the structuring of the comment phase. Section 1501.8 does not “prescribe [ ] universal time limits for the entire NEPA process, ”but expects agencies to set time limits that are “appropriate to individual actions” and “are consistent with the purposes of NEPA and other essential considerations of national policy.” Id. The regulation suggests consideration of the following factors when setting time limits in the NEPA process:
---Potential for environmental harm.
---Size of the proposed action.
---State of the art of analytic techniques.
---Degree of public need for the proposed action, including the consequences of delay.
---Number of persons and agencies affected.
---Degree to which relevant information is known and if not known the time required for obtaining it.
---Degree to which the action is controversial.
---Other time limits imposed on the agency by law, regulations, or executive order.
40 C.F.R. § 1501.8(b)(i-viii).
The magnitude of the ISP/WCS CISF project against these factors supports the provision of many public comment meetings across the country. There is very serious accident potential in hauling SNF by the thousands of cargoes to Andrews County, Texas. One of the single largest agglomerations of irradiated nuclear fuel on the planet will have to be perfectly contained when received, handled, stored at the surface, monitored, retrieved, exported, and at the decommissioning of the ISP/WCS CISF. The array of scientific considerations in the DEIS is extensive and may require interested commenters to seek expert interpretation and advice. The development of the ISP/WCS CISF is a national public policy determination for which there are years available to make the best-informed public determination. While the DEIS excludes serious analysis of transportation impacts from long-distance and transcontinental shipments of SNF, over 200,000,000 people live within 50 miles of a barge, truck or rail route on which the waste will travel. (8) Multiple federal and state agencies are affected and will have a role in regulation or implementation, such as the NRC, DOE, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration and its Federal Rail Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Department of Homeland Security. Hundreds of state and local utility, transportation, environmental, and emergency preparedness authorities will also be involved, pre-implementation and during the operational and decommissioning phases. Given the controversial nature of the project, the foregoing considerations militate in favor of a more geographically inclusive and lengthy DEIS public comment stage than the NRC has committed to do.
4. NRC Discretion to Limit Public Comments Is Constrained
Congress intended that agency discretion, and not the courts, be used to determine “when extra procedural devices should be employed.” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. U.S. EPA, 803 F.2d545, 559 (10th Cir.1986) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 546 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). But a reviewing court can overturn an agency decision for failure to provide additional procedure when there are “extremely compelling circumstances.” Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 543.
Such circumstances are present here, where the DEIS for an enormous undertaking has been published in the midst of an unprecedented national and global public health ordeal. Construction and operation of the ISP/WCS CISF demands flawless transportation from locations around the country to the Texas destination. At issue is an expensive and long-duration SNF storage site where extraordinarily deadly substances will have to be contained for many decades, or even centuries, or longer. The continued storage of INF at reactor sites, in hardened on-site or near-site storage, as an alternative to the ISP/WCS CISF, requires further consideration. The risks from even one major cask transport accident or act of sabotage, if accompanied by catastrophic releases of hazardous radioactivity, would be more than the public is willing to accept just to have the waste concentrated in west Texas.
Perhaps there can be no time when 100% of the interested public can participate at the public comment stage, but that only means that the public’s chance to focus on the ISP/WCS CISF, and participate, must be made as convenient and informed as possible. Accordingly, the ISP/WCS CISF licensing process must yield to this historical virus calamity. We thus request that the DEIS public comment opportunity for the ISP/WCS CISF be indefinitely extended from September 4, 2020, through the formal end of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, as when a safe, effective vaccine is universally available. We further ask that at that time, the NRC allow an additional 180 days for public comment, and that the agency also convene more than a dozen, geographically widespread, in-person public comment meetings, as proposed in this letter, along with the six requested Texas plenaries. The undersigned organizations have previously participated in this licensing proceeding as advocates for public health and safety and the environment. Finally, we ask for an expedited decision from the Commission as to these requests, given the fast-approaching September 4, 2020 deadline.
Thank you very much.
/s/ Terry J. Lodge
Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520
Toledo, OH 43604-5627
(419) 205-7084
Counsel for Don’t Waste Michigan, Citizens’ Environmental Coalition, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Public Citizen, Inc., San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, and Leona Morgan
/s/ Wallace L. Taylor
Wallace L. Taylor
4403 1st Ave. S.E., Suite 402
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402
Counsel for Sierra Club
(Additional organizations in alphabetical order by group name)
Alliance for Environmental Strategies
Rose Gardner, Founding Member
Box 514
Eunice, NM 88231
Beyond Nuclear
Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist
7304 Carroll Avenue, #182
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Cape Downwinders
Diane Turco, Director
P.O. Box 303
South Harwich, MA 02664
Citizen Action New Mexico
David B. McCoy, J.D., Executive Director
Albuquerque, NM 87110
Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping (CARD)
Janet Greenwald, Coordinator
112 Highway 580, Box 485
Dixon, NM 87527
Citizens Awareness Network
Deb Katz, Executive Director
P.O. Box 83
Shelburne Falls, MA
Citizens' Environmental Coalition
Barbara Warren, RN, MS, Executive Director
422 Oakland Valley Road
Cuddebackville, NY 12729
Citizen Power, Inc.
David Hughes, President
4037 Ludwick Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Citizens' Resistance at Fermi 2 (CRAFT)
Jessie Pauline Collins, Co-Chair
17397 Five Points Street
Redford, MI 48240
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
Joni Arends, Co-Founder and Executive Director
P.O. Box 31147
Santa Fe, NM 87594
Don't Waste Arizona
Scott Meyer, President
2934 West Northview Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85051
Don't Waste Michigan
Michael Keegan, Co-Chair
811 Harrison Street
Monroe, MI 48161
Energía Mía
Alice Canestaro-Garcia, Visual Artist/Pájara/Energía Mía Volunteer
San Antonio, TX
Environmental Justice Task Force of the Western New York Peace Center
Charley Bowman, Chair
1272 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14209
Freshwater Future
Kristy Meyer, Associate Director
3890 Charlevoix Avenue, Suite 230
P.O. Box 2479
Petoskey, MI 49770
Friends of Bruce
Eugene Bourgeois, President
2 Alma Street
Tiverton, Ontario, Canada
N0G 2T0
Georgia WAND (Women's Action for New Directions)
Cee'Cee' Anderson
250 Georgia Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30312
Great Lakes Environmental Alliance (GLEA)
Tanya Keefe, Chairperson
525 Court Street
Port Huron, MI 48060
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Bradley Angel, Executive Director
315 Sutter Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Green State Solutions
Mike Carberry, Director
2029 Friendship Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Healthy Environmental Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah)
Scott Williams, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director
824 South 400 West, Suite B-111
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Lone Tree Council
Terry Miller, Chairman
P.O. Box 1251
Bay City, MI 48706
Los Angeles Alliance for Survival
Jerry Rubin, Director
2035 4th Street, #103C
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment
Susan Gordon, Coordinator
P.O. Box 4524
Albuquerque, NM 87196
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Judy Treichel, Executive Director
4587 Ermine Court
Las Vegas, NV 89147
North American Water Office
George Crocker
PO Box 174
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Northwatch
Brennain Lloyd, Project Coordinator
Box 282
North Bay, Ontario, Canada
P1B 8H2
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Alice Slater, New York Director
1622 Anacapa Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS)
David A. Kraft, Director
3411 W. Diversey #13
Chicago, IL 60647
Nuclear Free World Committee of the Dallas Peace and Justice Center
Mavis Belisle and Lon Burnham, Co-Chairs
2710 Woodmere
Dallas, Texas 75233
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Nuclear Watch New Mexico
Scott Kovac, Research Director
903 W. Alameda #325
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Nuclear Watch South
Glenn Carroll, Coordinator
P.O. Box 8574
Atlanta, GA 31106
Atom.girl@nonukesyall.org
Nukewatch
John LaForge, Co-Director
740a Round Lake Road
Luck, WI 54853
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
Ralph Hutchison, Coordinator
P.O. Box 5743
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
On Behalf of Planet Earth
Sheila Parks, EdD, Founder
319 Arlington Street
Watertown, MA 02472
Our Developing World
Barby Ulmer
13004 Paseo Presada
Saratoga, CA 95070
The Peace Farm
Cletus Stein, Board Member
5113 SW 16th
Amarillo, TX 79106
Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles
Denise Duffield, Associate Director
617 S. Olive Street, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Physicians for Social Responsibility Nashville, TN Chapter
Karen Cisler
442 Brooksboro Terrace
Nashville, TN 37217
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Robert M. Gould, MD, President
548 Market Street #90725
San Francisco, CA 94104-5401
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Western North Carolina Chapter
Terry Clark, MD, Chairman
10 Chestnut Creek Road
Candler, NC 28715
Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future
Ellen Thomas
Washington, D.C. and Tryon, NC
Public Citizen - Texas
Adrian Shelley, State Director
309 East 11th Street, Suite 2
Austin, TX 78701
Safe Energy Rights Group (SEnRG)
Nancy Vann, President
201 Union Avenue
Peekskill, NY 10566
San Clemente Green
Gary Headrick
San Clemente, CA
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
Molly Johnson, Board Member
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
Straits Area Concerned Citizens for Peace, Justice and the Environment (SACCPJE)
David and Anabel Dwyer, Members
8100 Edgewater Beach
Mackinaw City, MI 49701
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
Karen Hadden, Executive Director
605 Carismatic Lane
Austin, TX 78748
Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
Eric Epstein, Chairman
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy
T. Jonathon Lodge, Convenor
316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520
Toledo, OH 43604
Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
Marylia Kelley, Executive Director
4049 First Street, Suite 243
Livermore, CA 94551
Uranium Watch
Sarah Fields, Program Director
140 South Main Street, Suite 12
Monticello, UT 84535
Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance
Deborah Stoleroff, Steering Committee Chairperson
Montpelier, VT
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Detroit Branch
Laura Dewey, Coordinator
1891 Lancaster
Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom U.S.
Darien De Lu, President, U.S. Section
Friends House
P.O. Box 13075
Des Moines, IA 50310
References:
(1) From “Environmental Impact Statement for Interim Storage Partners LLC's International’s License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Andrews County, Texas , Draft Report for Comment,” NUREG-2239 (ISP/WCS DEIS), p. 2-2.
(2) From the ISP/WCS CISF DEIS, Section 2.2.1, Proposed Action, p. 2-2: "By the end of the license term of the proposed CISF, the NRC staff expects that the SNF [spent nuclear fuel] stored at the proposed facility would have been shipped to a permanent geologic repository."
(3) From “Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec International’s License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste, Draft Report for Comment,” NUREG-2237 (Holtec DEIS), Docket ID NRC-2018-0052, p. 2-2.
(4) Letter, Joy Russell, Holtec Vice-President, to DOE, “Response to RFI on Private Initiatives to3Develop Consolidated SNF Storage Facilities,” 1/27/2017,https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/f34/Jan%2027%2C%202017%20-%20Joy%20Russell%20-%20Response%20to%20the%20RFI%20on%20Private%20Initiatives.pdf
(5) See Perry testimony from 23 minutes 30 seconds to 29 minutes 30 seconds at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgtHCsQzffc&feature=youtu.be
(6) Federal Register Notice for WCS' DEIS, FR Doc. 2020-09795, Filed: 5/7/2020 8:45 am; Publication Date: 5/8/2020.
(7) Letter from U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett (35th District, Texas) to NRC Chairman Kristine L. Svinicki, NRC Commissioners Baran, Caputo, Wright, and Hanson, Secretary Vietti-Cook, and Mr. James Park, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, June 16, 2020, posted online at: <http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/356082/28319398/1593466400517/6+16+20+US+Rep+Lloyd+Doggett+Letter+to+NRC.pdf?token=xi5Xnzq7U4qOSXySGHBXzzTRZaY%3D> Also notable, the environmental scoping comment period for ISP/WCS's CISF was limited to a 60-day period, while for Yucca Mountain, the DOE allowed 120 days. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,” DOE/EIS-0250, Vol. 1, pp. 1-23-24.
(8) In the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, Volume I” (February 2002), the U.S. Department of Energy pronounced that the “region of influence for public health and safety along existing transportation routes is 800 meters (0.5 mile) from the center line of the transportation rights-of-way and from the boundary of rail yards for incident-free (non-accident) conditions. The region of influence was extended to 80 kilometers (50 miles) to address potential human health and safety impacts from accident scenarios.” §§ 3.2.1, p. 3-119. The irradiated nuclear fuel bound for the ISP/WCS CISF is identical to the INF targeted for deep repository burial on Western Shoshone land at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Yucca Region of Influence radius of 0.5 miles for incident-free transports, and 50 miles for accident scenarios, can be logically used in public comments about the several thousands of shipments of INF headed to the ISP/WCS CISF in Texas. Additionally, every single one of the several thousands of canisters delivered to ISP/WCS's CISF would, at a later date, supposedly have to be shipped, yet again, to a geological repository for permanent disposal.
July 13, 2020