Proposed Rule Change Comments (Which Are Due Today)

Because the NRC has shown it cannot be trusted, because they are despicable villains out to visit death on reactor host communities, am taking the liberty of posting here on GNB the comments just submitted on the NRC's proposed rule change that would see spent fuel waste left sitting at reactor sites in Dry Casks that have a 20 year life span for over 100 additional years because of the nuclear industry is incapable of dealing with their long term storage responsibilities for the most dangerous wastes created by mankind. Again, playing the part of Doctor Mengele, the employees of the NRC are showing they will stoop to any level to preserve the nuclear industry, and thus their agency and their own jobs. This incestuous circle jerk between licensee and regulator must be stopped.

Dear NRC:

I am writing as a stakeholder living within 3 miles of a failing nuclear reactor to object to the proposed rule change announced in the Federal Registry relating to the continued and mislabeled temporary storage of spent fuel at nuclear reactor sites after cessation of operations as is found in Part 51 of the Rules and Regulations that the NRC for the most part has waived (in the form of Generic letters and findings) for their licensees with whom they have an unhealthy even incestuous regulatory relationship with that has resulted in the protection of human health and the environment taking a second seat to the NRC and NEI's co-sponsored scheme (can we say racketeering?) to keep antiquated reactors up and operating at all costs in the name of supposed National Security and to get Wall Street on board with their own desires for a Nuclear Renaissance here in America. The great nuclear energy experiment known as the peaceful atom has been a dismal failure, and in 50 years the military/commercial nuclear industrial complex have failed in their most crucial task...dealing with the most dangerous and lethal wastes known to mankind, and giving them through this proposed rule change an additional 130 years with which to desperately seek answers and solutions is completely unacceptable to host communities and stakeholders such as myself. Our contract with the government, with the NRC, with their licensees calls for these waste streams to be removed in a TIMELY FASHION, and we expect that contract to be honored, rather than having a bunch of ego driven liars at a failed Regulatory Agency (that would be the NRC) trying to foist a scam off on the nation and the world by pushing their duties down the road onto the backs of children that will not be born for another 3 or 4 generations to come. That reality, and thus these rule changes are unacceptable.

First, as a stakeholder living within 3 miles of Indian Point, I take exception with the NRC's fundamentally flawed decision NOT TO DO a Draft Regulatory Analysis of this regulation, as they foolishly believe and contend it does not place any and/or additional burdens on their licensees. This amendment as written fundamentally EXTENDS the envisioned time that Spent Fuel waste streams will remain at/be stored at licensee sites, thus DEFACTO adds additional burdens for both the licensee and THE HOST COMMUNITIES who are now, UNDER DURESS, (emphasis added) being forced by the NRC as a result of their illegal, dishonest and corrupt license renewal process to play host to fundamentally flawed and dangerous reactors that are operating far above safe capacity limits, and beyond their safe periods of operation as both licensees, the NRC and their partners in crime the NEI, DOE and EPRI play Russian Roulette with public health and safety in the name of a Nuclear Renaissance that is not likely to arrive taxpayers in light of our failing American Economy are going to rebuke any attempts to have us pay the $1.5 trillion dollar price tag for a new generation of reactors, are not going to be willing to give robber barons in the industry and the NRC the loan guarantees they seek. This as an aside is just another reason why the NRC's rule change seeking an additional 100 years to deal with waste streams should be DENIED...the industry is dying (as it should) and the costs and problems associated with its waste streams must be dealt with now, rather than foisting the responsibility off onto the backs of our great, great grandchildren's children.

Webster's defines burden as something oppressive or worrisome...by shear definition of the word burden, this proposed rule change requires the NRC to have conducted a Draft Regulatory Analysis. A rule change of this magnitude cannot be made without NRC Licensees taking on the burden of reviewing the rule and its impacts (both real and potential) on themselves, their reactor sites, and their corporations...simply stated, that is a burden in and of itself. In its usual fashion of mitigating the publics right to be fully involved in these processes, in their usual attempts to force communities to accept unreasonable risks with little or no say, the NRC is again trying to manipulate and play with the rules to defacto site 104 mini long term storage facilities in reactor host communities in what amounts to a criminal action on their part to ABANDON REACTOR WASTES across the American landscape, while allowing corporations to duck out from under their legal and moral obligations to remove these waste streams from the reactor sites and return said sites to the communities in a timely fashion for unrestricted use and enjoyment.

Further, the United States Government, the DOE and NRC's inability to site, license and build a LONG TERM DISPOSAL facility in a timely manner (it is pointed out here the dismal failure of the envisioned compact system, as well as snags that seem to have ship wrecked George Bush's criminal actions to force Yucca Mountain on the people of Nevada which the NRC participated in) makes this proposed rule change a farce at best, and at worse a deliberate, malicious criminal intent to mislead the citizens of America, and to permanently saddle nuclear reactor host communities with DEFACTO Spent Fuel Storage faculties without any of the protections they should and would normally be afforded if the NRC were actually siting and licensing them for what they are. As example of this permanence we refer to the numerous and dangerous waste streams from IP 1 which was closed in 1974...some 35 years later, no action has been taken to even begin the decommissioning of the reactor itself, and all of its generated waste streams will remain in (for practical purposes) permanent storage for perpetuity since these new proposed findings would push back dealing with these waste streams at least another five generations. Leaving reactor waste on site in overly populated areas for periods of time in excess of 100 years amounts to a default long term radioactive waste disposal facilities, and as such, these rule changes should and must entitle every host community the rights and protections they should be afforded when such a MAJOR FEDERAL ACTION IS TAKING PLACE, which means these sites must be licenses for what they are, and that means hearings, that means full blown EIS and risk assessment procedures, and it means we have the right as communities to REFUSE YOUR STINKING LYING PROPOSAL FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, have the right too tell you and the nuclear industry to go fuck yourselves, and the fact that you do not like our message, or the way in which we deliver it does not give you the right to ignore it or dismiss it.

In 51.22 as proposed, it reads in part...

We first should look again to the dictionary which defines temporary as lasting for a LIMITED TIME (emphasis added). It is further pointed out, that said limited time was SET IN STONE and AGREED TO BY ALL PARTIES at the time the original license to operate a nuclear facility was granted...said date certain was to be no more than 60 years from the date a reactor was taken out of service, at which point in time the site was to be decommissioned to a point where the LAND COULD BE RETURNED TO THE HOST COMMUNITY FOR FULL USE AND ENJOYMENT WITH NO RESTRICTIONS. The NRC's inability to successfully find, locate, site, license and BUILD a long term disposal facility in a timely manner has defacto created Long Term High and Low Level Radioactive Disposal Facilities in every nuclear reactor community that do not have the safeguards and protections which are called for in the NRC's own citing criteria. The fact that these criteria exist, have been written is further solid proof that there are CERTAIN KNOWN and QUANTIFIED RISKS TO BOTH HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT that need to be safeguarded against when these wastes are being stored/disposed of in a particular location. These proposed rules make it obvious that current reactor sites are being turned into DEFACTO long term storage facilities for these dangerous waste streams (100 plus years IS LONG TERM) and this reality must be admitted by the NRC, and once admitted to, they must afford us as stakeholders OUR LEGAL RIGHTS, including having these sites go through and meeting all licensing requirements required within the rules and regulations as found in 10 CFR.

Storage of these wastes is not envisioned as being temporary, and in fact and deed the NRC's own internal documents show their true intent of storing said waste streams WHERE THEY SIT for periods in excess of ONE HUNDRED YEARS! Spending any time at all reviewing the various documents available at EPRI's online site will prove this out. This is very germane to the very concept of this envisioned rule change, the very concept of TEMPORARY as presented in this proposed rule change. OVER 100 YEARS is not temporary, far exceeds the maximum 60 year period to release the sites for unconditioned use as was agreed to with the host communities, but more importantly, far out strips the life span of both spent fuel pools currently being used for storage (many of which are now victims of significant leakage issues), as well as the maximum LICENSED usage period of the Dry Casks that much of the waste is now being illegally transferred into. Dry Casks are licensed for a period of only 20 years...NRC's requested rule changes, the changes to their FAKE FINDINGS that are not back up with any meanful scientific findings seeks to leave wastes where they are in Dry Casks that are only licensed for 20 years of safe usage for a period of time five time longer than that period of time....are they planning on IGNORING SOUND SCIENCE and SIMPLY TAKING A CHANGE AND LETTING SAID WASTES SIT IN THOSE CONTAINERS for and EXTRA 80 years hoping for the best? Are they planning on having said wastes transferred into a series of new casks as this period of lapses, and if so does that not create additional BURDENS, and further who will pay the costs for this on going litany of new dry casks, and the transferred fees associated with them...what about the long term storage of the USED Dry Casks?

100 years is a marker of significance, and as proof of this, it is pointed out that such a milestone of PERMANANCE would make these DEFACTO LONG TERM HIGH LEVEL WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES that the NRC is illegally creating illegible for inclusion on the list of Historical Sites, deemed National Treasures worthy of being preserved for all time as LANDMARKS of AMERICAN ACCOMPLISHMENT! With all due respect, these unlicensed and dangerous defacto waste sites are not the Lincoln Monument.

The time has come to take off the Sheep's outfit and expose the wolf for what it is...the NRC in illegal collusion with their licensees and with the full cooperation of other agencies of the Federal Government (DOD and DOE come quickly to mind) are through the implementation of this and other rule changes attempting to create in perpetuity Mini Long Term Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities that have not been properly sited, licensed, built, have not gone through the required formal EIS that would be required for such SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL ACTIONS, and that are saddling host communities with duties, responsibilities and risks (both from a environmental/health perspective, and from a security/terrorist perspective) that we have not agreed to be a part of, have not been adequately compensated for, and have not had a say in via the normal PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS we are entitled to. In short, the NRC as is usual is attempting to GANG RAPE 104 innocent communities, trying to scar our landscapes for generations to come without us having our moral and legal say in the process...in short, the NRC who is supposed to protect communities, the NRC that is supposed to place public health and safety above all else has become a predatory agency out to victimize the very people they are sworn to protect...perhaps it is time that we have a sister predators list to match that kept on sexual predators that has the pictures, addresses and names of the regulatory predators that have ruthlessly gang raped innocent communities, callously and indiscriminately visiting nuclear abortions and cancers on communities as they see fit in their evil and twisted plans to preserve their beloved nuclear industry.

It is pointed out here, that the language as written in this rule change is deliberately vague and ambiguous thereby leaving host communities with AN OPEN ENDED OBLIGATION to PLAY HOST TO DANGEROUS WASTE STREAMS that were already supposed to have been removed from these (supposed) temporary storage areas into a permanent LONG TERM DISPOSAL FACILITY. It is further noted, that we through a surcharge tacked onto our monthly utility bills have ALREADY PAID FOR THIS LONG TERM STORAGE FACILITY TO BE BUILT, and FOR THE WASTE STREAMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THEIR (supposed) TEMPORARY locations at current reactor sites. Specifically, the proposed rule states these waste streams would be allowed to remain where they sit until a storage facility can reasonably be expected to be available...this creates AN OPEN ENDED LEGAL OBLIGATION on both the general public, and on LICENSEES that exceeds their currently expected requirements and obligations...in short, it CREATES ADDITIONAL BURDENS, therefore making it NECESSARY to perform A DRAFT REGULATORY ANALYSIS. Further, reasonable minds would agree that these sites are not envisioned as temporary, but in fact and deed are permanent, and being permanent must be LICENSED for what they really are...this means the DOE applying to the NRC for 104 Licenses to operate High Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities across America...the EIS for such a site where the waste sits at the Indian Point reactor site COULD NEVER GET APPROVED, and the NRC knows this, which is why they are trying to anally back door our community into playing host in perpetuity to these dangerous waste streams. As the husband of a wife who has suffered breast cancer as a result of Indian Points operations, I flatly reject this unlawful attempt by the NRC to place a long term storage facility in our community, and state for the record that all employees who are playing a part in this charade are CRIMINALS who are committing treason against America as a nation, and are guilty of regulatory raping of 104 reactor communities who are being forced to host these monstrous machines of death and birth defects.

Furthermore, we need to closely examine the term reasonably expected to be available...that infers/intones some envisioned FUTURE DATE and TIME that when reached would see the waste streams removed from their so called temporary storage places...problem is, the NRC, DOE and the entire nuclear industry have a DEPLORABLE TRACK RECORD when it comes to dealing with their waste streams in a RESPONSIBLE MANNER, when it comes to meeting REASONABLY EXPECTED TIME LINES FOR AVAILABILITY. As a point of fact, I would point out that the original compact plan pushed forward by the DOE for Low Level Radioactive Waste storage in the very early 80's as a part of the negotiations that created these waste assurance findings was riddled with corruption, and collapsed (see Midwest Compact as perfect example of this claim and proof of its accuracy). Furthermore, as of right now (a reality that has been true for well over two decades now) the Federal Government, DOE, NRC and the Nuclear Industry know for a fact that Yucca Mountain is dead as a long term storage solution for these waste streams. Going further, GNEP is also fatally flawed, and even if the technology could work, it does not RESOLVE the long term storage problems for these lethal radioactive waste streams that are already causing known cancer deaths and stillborns in our communities. In short, the NRC through these actions are attempting to legally operate miniature DEATH CAMPS in every reactor community, are playing the part of Hitler deciding what is an acceptable level of deaths in meeting their goals of seeing a Nuclear Renaissance here in American...sorry, but communities should not be forced to accept a modern day Dr. Mengele using us for his own sick and twisted human experiments to find what is and acceptable risk dose that communities and our children can be exposed to in the name of National Security, in the name of a nuclear renaissance.

It is pointed out here, that the fuel streams that would be created through GNEP's envisioned reprocessing first and foremost could not even be BURNED in the NEXT GENERATION nuclear reactors such as the AP1000, which would mean creation of new reactor fuels where no market even exists, and would not exist for at least another 100-150 years. More importantly, this reality, this new fuel being envisioned is going to be highly enriched BOMB GRADE feed stock which opens another whole can of worms that have not been reviewed and weighed by our Government. Though these issues are at best secondary to the manner now before this commission, they add substance to the claim that there is NOTHING TEMPORARY in the nuclear industry and the NRC's plans when it comes to leaving these dangerous waste streams where they sit...in short, the NRC is attempting to DEFRAUD the citizens of the United States of America, are attempting to perpetuate a crime on every reactor host community in America, are attempting to sidestep the safeguards that public siting processes would afford host communities when LONG TERM SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILTIES are being proposed for a chosen community and or location. If these changes are accepted, the NRC should be required to place 12 foot prison fencing around the ten mile circle of death that is the nuclear fall out area in the case of a significant accident at one of these sites, and declare our communities defacto concentration camps...we already have the potential ovens sitting here on the Hudson, have already seen that planes can crash into them...see the recent crash landing of a 747 into the Hudson River, and replay the video of not one, but two planes crashing into the World Trade Centers. We are being forced into Death Camps, some of us will be killed by cancers caused by these waste streams, others of us will see our children suffer Nuclear Abortions at the hands of the NRC and its licensees as it is a proven fact that living in close proximity to these waste streams greatly elevates a woman's chance of pregnancy ending in a stillborn birth, know that children are exposed to higher rates of leukemia, and that woman's breast cancers rates are greatly enhanced...lets label these reactors properly....they are nuclear machines of death, their locations and the communities forced to house them defacto DEATH CAMPS with the Chairman and Scretary of the NRC playing the part of Dr. Mengele.

Moving on, let us discuss the proposed changes to the Waste Confidences rules that the agency is wanting to implement. The first SIGNIFICANT change would be to finding number 2 which would now read as follows:

It is pointed out here, that the Nuclear Industry in its first 50 plus years of operation has failed to keep its promise of finding/implementing a long term storage solution for these waste streams. Even ignoring past deadlines that have been missed by all significant parties (NEI, EPRI, NRC, DOE, DOD and all nuclear licensees) in the military/commercial nuclear cycle, ignoring all previous obligations and deadlines they have missed, and turning only to the most current one wherein these parties stated Yucca Mountain would be open, and accepting wastes by 2017...the DOE, NRC and NEI have now admitted that deadline cannot and will not be met...furthermore, and even more troublesome is the fact that even IF (which is a big if) Yucca Mountain is ever open, its capacity is already filled up by a magnitude of at least three (as in the government would need to build three Yucca Mountains to handle currently existing waste streams, let alone the newly created waste streams which will result from the unlawful relicensing of American's existing 104 ancient reactors). GNEP is yet another part of the same scam...its another attempt to change a waste stream into a potential future use resource in a shell game identical in its illegal scope to what DOE, DOD and the folks at the Gaseous Diffusion plants did with the vast stockpiles of depleted uranium when they decided it could all be used to make armor piercing munitions...the same munitions by the way that make the NRC's DBT for reactor sites fatally flawed since an average sniper could take out (as example) Indian Point's guard tower with a high power 50 caliber rifle.

With finding 2, the NRC is being first and foremost dishonest with their stakeholders, as they already know they cannot meet even the newly established benchmark that this change would create of 80 years down the road from the day the change was officially codified into law. Using Indian Point as example, should their license renewal application be illegally rubber stamped and approved by the NRC as they have done with every other application that has come before them, the NRC would not have to have a storage facility ready and operational until approximately 2093, and if, as we expect, they change the period of license renewal from 20 to 40 more years of additional operation, that obligation date would move even further into the future until the year 2113! This proposed rule amounts to a radioactive waste ponzi scheme wherein the obligations to safely and permanently deal with the radioactive waste streams being created by the NRC's licensees are being pushed ever further and farther down the road to be dealt with by citizens that will not even be born yet for 3-4 generations to come...it is bad enough to con those of us who are living, but to con generations of citizens yet to be born is the worst kind of crime that can be envisioned, a far more dastardly and evil intention than those harbored by Hitler himself...are my words inflamatory...ABSOLUTELY and deservedly so...we have a agency of the Federal Government that has ignored and flouted the law, has rubber stamped the license renewal applications of dozens of fatally flawed and dangerous ancient reactors over the objections of host communities who no longer care to play host to these monsters, we have a Federal Agency that deserves the label Agency of Death, the Nuclear Grime Reaper of the United States Government, and these rule changes have crossed a line, must be called for what they are...the nuclear raping of every host community in America.

The DOE, DOD, NRC, NEI, EPRI and their various licensees and contractors have a DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to honestly and fully deal with and dispose of their waste streams...asking the American public to give them in total (if this rule change were to go into effect) a cumulative total of 130 years before we see the first ounces of Spent Fuel going into proper and safe licensed long term disposal facilities is simply unacceptable...in fact, as a part of these comments and this process, it is officially requested here, that a moratorium be declared on any further licensing and/or re licensing of nuclear faculties and/or reactors until such time that the DOD, DOE, NRC and their licensees and contractors have met their existing obligations to SAFELY DISPOSE OF THESE WASTE STREAMS OFF SITE...the NRC should be willing to accept this moratorium since their currently existing Finding as relates to Waste Confidence suggests they can in a timely fashion site and build a disposal facility for these wastes....the time line as it currently exists would see them having said site up, built and accepting waste streams some 80 years sooner than they would be required to have it done in should this newly created fraud as worded in the proposed changed language be allowed to stand. The time for fraud must come to an end, the three card Monty Shell game mentality of where the waste is going to be stored must stop...you do not deal with your obligations by constantly moving the marker down the track, foisting your moral, legal and financial obligations off onto future generations yet to come, and the NRC has played this card too many times already, and must not be allowed to play it again this time around. There death of indiscriminately visiting additional deaths onto their host communities in the name of the greater societal good must come to an end...millions of soldiers fought and died to stop Hitler, millions of innocent civilians across America will die if we do not stop the NRC.

It is time to pay for your dance card, time for the Military/Commercial Fuel Cycle industry to pay their debt to society, to their host communities by keeping their promises, by fulfilling their CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS to remove the waste from these reactor sites NOW, not in the year 2113 as the NRC is attempting to do in this rule change. WE reluctantly signed up and accepted the deaths that have been visited upon our communities in Indian Points first 40 years of operation, we as a community have already PAID OUR PRICE for the Good of the so called Greater Society, and it is time that the NRC keeps its promise made to our community, to all communities who have played host to nuclear reactors here in America...we have paid the price, and now it is time for NRC to make good on their own deliverables by removing (with the DOE) their waste streams that are illegally being stored at these reactor sites.

Moving on to the proposed language in finding number 4 where the new rule would state:

Again, the NRC without ANY TESTING or STUDIES to support their findings is suggesting we have and accept an ever moving target date wherein said wastes can be safely stored at a site. By what rational is the NRC relying upon in claiming wastes can be safely stored on site for these newly extended periods of time that are potentially 60-80 years LONGER than the original data recommended as a safe period of time for onsite storage of these waste streams?

As example, in a illegal and dangerous move, Entergy has been moving spent fuel that is controlled under one license (IP1) onto the site of another licensee (IP2), co-mingling these wastes for a period of time in the spent fuel pool of another licensee, then transferring said spent fuel into Dry Cask storage in casks that have been approved for storage for a period of ONLY 20 YEARS (emphasis added). It therefore seems not only reasonable, but prudent for the NRC to identify the studies they are relying upon in asking for a rule change that would (in the case of Indian Point) move the target date for proper treatment, removal and storage in a licensed facility into the future to the year of at least 2093? Further, seeing as these waste streams by that point in time will have been sitting on the Indian Point site for a period in excess of 120 years, what studies and rational is the NRC relying upon to support their contention in Finding 4 that there is REASONAL ASSURANCE that these waste streams can be safely stored at this and other similar sites for a period of an additional 80 years (60 years beyond the 20 year license renewal period that the NRC has already PRE-DETERMINED WILL BE GRANTED TO ANY LICENSEE WHO ASKS FOR OR SEEKS SAME). If the currently used dry casks are only licensed and approved for storage up to and including 20 years, that would mean either A) the NRC has already decided to blindly rubberstamp a significant (69 years) license extension for these Dry Casks, or B) is envisioning said spent fuel to be moved from Dry Cask to Dry Cask at least four more times between now and when said waste streams would be moved offsite to a LICENSED LONG TERM DISPOSAL FACILITY such as the one that will likely never be built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. How is the NRC planning on dealing with these additional BURDENS? If these burdens are not going to be born by the licensees, then by whom...include in your answer who will BEAR THE FINANCIAL COSTS.

Either way, one has to ask some questions here:

If Dry Casks now in use have a 20 year life span, and the NRC is asking for a rule change that would push back by 80-100 years the date when they would be required to adequately and safely deal with these waste streams by removing them to a LICENSED LONG TERM DISPOSAL FACILITY

A) What rational and studies are being relied upon in the findings the NRC is making/claiming here? By what rational and relying on what studies has the NRC reached the conclusion and finding that they can safely store these wastes where they sit for over 100 additional years.

B) How can and does the NRC justify their finding that no additional burdens are being placed on their licensee if these changes are implemented when even the most simple of minds can quickly see that dealing with, handling these wastes on site for an additional period of time up to and including 100 years does create some potentially SIGNIFICANT burdens for their licensees, and for the host communities! Dry Casks cost millions of dollars each, and using Indian Point as one example, would see financial obligations/burdens running into the hundreds of millions of dollars if the expected 100 plus Dry Casks envisioned for that site had to be swapped out...further more, what about the additional risks created to both health and the environment as these Cask Swaps create ever increasing amounts of WASTE NEEDING STORAGE, realistically ON SITE?

C) How does the NRC justify their findings, how do they justify their claim of no burdens on their licensees when SEVERAL LICENSEES have already successfully SUED THE DOE for financial compensation for extra burdens they are having to assume because current obligations have not been met by the DOE and the NRC in taking charge and ownership over these waste streams, removing them from the reactor sites as is required under existing laws and agreements? You cannot have a potato, call it a potato in one venue, then go to another venue and claim that potato to be a watermelon. Currently RESOLVED AND SETTLED law suits that deal with this very issue already establish that there are ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS AND BURDENS on the licensees when these waste are left where they sit, which by proxy means there are additional (unstudied and unqualified) health and environmental risks and burdens being placed on host communities.

In opposing this rule change, in demanding an end to the dishonest presentations of what has become a ROGUE REGULATORY AGENCY, it is suggested in these comments that we allow the facts as presented in the Federal Registry Announcement to condemn the NRC, to show to all who care to read it the lies that have been perpetuated on the host communities for decades already.

The Five Waste Findings came out of a process begun some 30 years ago in 1979. In 1984 the following findings were created/written into the regulations:

The DOE and NRC's inability to actually site, license and build the Long Term Storage Facility at Yucca Mountain coupled with recent SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that find the site geologically unfit for the long term storage of high radioactive waste streams make the NRC's assertions in finding number 1 FALSE, yet the NRC is proposing to keep this finding as written intact. As a stakeholder, it is therefore requested that the NRC, its assigns, heirs and outside contractors summit too us the stakeholder communities the studies, documents and proof they are relying upon to support finding number one in light of their inability to site, license and build a long term repository for these waste streams at their own preferred site of Yucca Mountain, combined with the reality that even if at some future date uncertain said site is built that its volumes are already spoken for three times over. Giving communities empty assurances is no longer adequate..what solid concrete proof is the NRC offering up to support their claims and contentions in these new findings? What proof can you offer, what guarantees are going to be put on the table to prove you are an agency of your word? We want penalty schedules put in place, want concrete and contractual obligations given to us as host communities, rather than pie in the sky ever changing findings that are ever changing as the NRC again and again fails to meet their own obligations to members of the public in host communities.

In the original finding number two, the NRC represented that ONE OR MORE (emphasis added) long term disposal sites for HWL and SNF WOULD BE AVAILABLE (emphasis added) by the year 2007-2009. For the record, it is noted that these sites (plural) are not ready as promised some 25 years after the NRC made the contractual obligation that they would be. Further, it is pointed out that not only are these sites not ready, they have not even been built, licensed or even formally sited and more importantly there is only one potential site even remotely still in the running at this point in time, and recent scientific studies have deemed Yucca Mountain as unsuited for the purpose.

This past contractual obligation represented in finding two has been dismally failed, yet the NRC is asking us with no studies, no actual proof, no guarantees should (as they will) fail to deliver, allow them to claim they have a Waste Confidence that they can site, build and open for storage a singular site for storage of this ever increasing nuclear waste stream within 100 years of the new finding going into effect...that is simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH, nor can we as host communities and a nation afford the un quantified yet real risks to both human health and the environment when, as surely they will, the NRC and DOE once gain FAIL MISERABLY in their ability to deliver on their FALSE AND MISLEADING UNDOCUMENTED AND UNSTUDIED PROMISES as presented in their proposed changes to findings two and four, and the other findings that would remain intact as currently written. Simply stated, the NRC's confidences ARE WORTHLESS PIECES OF DUNG not worth the paper they are written upon, and should not be tolerated without financial guarantees running into hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars are put in place to force them to carry out their performance of duties as they present them.

Further, it is noted here for the record, that in its original findings (AND THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS MADE AND INCORPORATED INTO THEM WITH THE LANGUAGE USED AND WRITTEN BY NRC STAFF) as codified into the rules in 1984, it was represented by the NRC that within 30 years of expiration of ANY reactor license, they would have the permanent storage capability to accept their wastes. Indian Point 1 was permanently shut down in 1974, and here we are 35 years later and the NRC has not kept its contractual promises to our community, the DOE has not kept its promises to our community, and Entergy has had to taken on additional burdens and legal responsibilities that are entailed in taking care of waste streams that are not and should not still be their legal responsibility for, waste streams that are not supposed to still be sitting on site here in my community. More disturbing, as utility rate payers, we have already PAID THE BILL to have these waste streams safely removed from their current temporary location and moved into permanent LICENSED LONG TERM STORAGE FACILITIES.

Under the newly proposed finding number 2, and presenting no scientific data or studies of merit to back up their contentions and beliefs as represented in said new finding two, the NRC now wants not 30 years, but 100-120 more years to site, license, build and have ready for use a storage facility for the nuclear industry and their life threatening, cancer causing waste streams, all the while wanting to pretend that no additional burdens are created for their licensees, or members of the public in host communities around the nation. The various and numerous law suits brought by NRC's licensees that seek FINANCIAL COMPENSATION for the additional burdens of keeping the waste on site at their facilities make the NRC's presentations negligently, maliciously, egregiously and materially FALSE upon their face. The NRC's callous disregard for the truth, their criminal misrepresentation of basic truths is treasonous, shows them as an agency unfit to continue being the regulators for the most dangerous industry in the history of the world. Furthermore, their own presentations contained within the Federal Registry Announcement on this Rule Change how their finding 2 as previously presented, and as currently presented is invalid and unacceptable and therefore must be rejected as the prefabricated piece of literary fiction that it is. If a gas station has a leaking fuel tank, said station is SHUT DOWN until the leaks are repaired...spent fuel pools are leaking all over America, spewing forth into our ground waters unknown quantities of tritium, strontium 90 and celsium 137, and all the NRC does is promise they will KEEP AND EYE ON IT...these serious environmental damages are being born by our communities because the DOE and the NRC have failed to meet their contractual obligations regarding spent fuel wastes, and it is this reality, this failure on the part of the Federal Government that sees them refusing to properly enforce the rules and regulations meant to protect human health and the environment, sees them ROUTINELY waiving rules that are inconvenient to themselves and their licensees...simply stated, the NRC is no longer regulating their licensees, but instead in collusion with the industry are thwarting the law, ignoring the regulations, and endangering human health and the environment in the name of nuclear profits and proliferation.

Without any justifications for their claims, and ignoring basic truths, in finding number 3 the NRC falsely represents that the waste streams temporarily stored on site at defacto unlicensed and dangerous onsite nuclear dump sites will be done so in a safe manner. A mere glance through the ADAMS site, a quick review on the various and numerous enforcement actions that have been taken against Licensees for improper storage of their waste streams, for violations of 10 CFR rules and regulations as relates to the safe storage of these waste streams (IE, Tritium and Strontium 90 leaks at numerous licensee sites owned by Exelon and Entergy come quickly to mind, not to mention serious violations at Duke and TVA licensed facilities as well), the thousands of generic letters that WAIVE regulations meant too protect host communities show finding number 3 which the NRC wants to keep intact as written to be materially false and misleading upon its face as written. Furthermore, the deteriorating conditions at almost every site of the spent storage fuel pools that have necessitated what could be described as EMERGENCY DRY CASK APPROVAL show that these waste streams are incapable of being safely stored on site at THESE UNLICENSED DEFACTO STORAGE FACILITIES for the 100-120 year period that these rules changes would create.

Looking at the original 1984 finding, comparing it to the proposed finding, one has to ask what studies and scientific studies has the NRC conducted, that they are relying upon in finding number four. The original finding that was reached after a FIVE YEAR PUBLIC PROCESS reached the conclusion that said waste streams could safely be stored where they sit for a period of 30 years or more with NO ACTION NECESSARY...that has born out to be false. In less than 30 years, age, structural decay and break down of the facility that comes with that age have seen spent fuel cracks development of SIGNIFICANT LEAKS as walls threaten to collapse in on the spent fuel racks, which could cause a radioactive Armageddon.

In what can only be described as EMERGENCY ACTIONS, spent fuel was moved into Dry Cask storage in a fatally flawed and abbreviated public participation process...Indian Point is again a good study subject for these claims, and it is pointed out here that the NRC CHOSE TO IGNORE CLAIMS OF CRACKS IN THE PAD meant to hold the Dry Casks at Indian Point because Entergy had reached a CRITICAL POINT OF STORAGE wherein fuel had to be moved into casks, or their reactors shut down due to lack of space in their spent fuel pool for IP2. Overlooked in all of this is the emergency situation that will be created in 20 years when the Casks being used currently ARE NO LONGER LEGALLY USABLE OR LICENSED FOR STORAGE....this fact alone makes the NRC request in their newly proposed findings of a 100-120 year NEW WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL OBLIGATIONS CURRENTLY DUE AND PAYABLE TO THE HOST COMMUNITIES UNACCEPTABLE.

As host communities we signed on for a 40 year run, were given assurances and CONTRACTUAL PROMISES that after that 40 year run the waste streams from operation would be removed in a timely fashion not to exceed 60 years. In the case of IP1, that would mean decommissioning the reactor, removing its waste streams and releasing that portion of the site for unrestricted use no later than the year 2034. Simply stated, that deadline is not going to be met, the NRC has wrongfully already waived that obligation for their licensee to the detriment of the host community.

With various tricks and deceits, coupled with this newest ploy as represented in their false findings as presented in their Federal Registry Announcement, they are defacto seeking a change to the rules that would push back their obligations to our community to us as stakeholders to (potentially) 2113, some 70 plus years later than their original promise to our community, to all the other reactor host communities in America....in more frightening, is the very real fact that they are continuing to make FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO COMMUNITIES as they move forward in attempts to site, license and build a whole new generation of nuclear reactors that will be contributing even larger amounts of waste to this waste stream as they will be far larger reactors than the current reactors that are now in operation.

The NRC wishes to leave 5 as is currently written...it is stated for the record here, that five should be accurately rewritten to represent the truth of the matter as is being experienced by the host communities. Finding 5 should be rewritten as follows:

5. The commission through its past actions and disregard for public health, safety, the environment, and acceptable standards of law has reasonable assurance that we will issue generic findings, disregard rules, and lie to the general public whenever possible in taking whatever steps we deem necessary to protect the financial investments of our licensees, and provide them with whatever onsite storage is necessary to keep their reactors up and operational.

This change to finding 5 is more accurate and truthful, and would represent in true fashion the routine raping of communities that is carried out on the part of the NRC and its staff as they take whatever steps are necessary to preserve an industry that is not worth saving.

It is further noted for the record here, that the NRC's original findings as codified in 1984 said no significant environmental impacts would occur for at least 30 years beyond a facilities expiration of license and/or operation...Indian Point 1 as example ceased operations in 1974, the 30 year window envisioned and studied in the NRC reaching its conclusions has past, as it has for many nuclear facilities throughout the United States. It was not envisioned when those studies were done that the DOD, DOE and NRC would rubberstamp relicensing of every reactor under a stated claim of National Security Interests as has happened, as was orchestrated and allowed under illegal backroom deals made with NEI, the White House, George Bush, his administration, all with the NRC's all too eager wink and nod approval that would preserve their agency, and the tens of thousands of civil service jobs it creates. Setting aside this great racketeering scam perpetrated upon American Society, and looking merely at the original claims and safety benchmark of 30 years of safe onsite storage, it is noted here that the NRC cannot point to ONE SCIENTIFIC STUDY THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN to justify their new findings, to justify their request to establish what amounts to a new and additional 100-120 year time period for these dangerous waste streams to remain ONSITE AT NUCLEAR REACTORS SITES, defacto forcing host communities to act as UNLICENSED LONG TERM STORAGE FACILTIES FOR THESE WASTE STREAM for at least FIVE GENERATIONS TO COME.

As a part of these comments, it is also formally requested the NRC's Inspector General open a formal investigation into the criminal wrongdoings as are outlined herein, and where appropriate take immediate action to stop the harm being done to the general public in the host communities, and to bring criminal charges against NRC staff for dereliction of duty, and material misrepresentation of facts.

Respectfully Submitted