8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

1/809

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

alice slater

446 e 86 st

ny

NY, NY 10028

From: Kris Cunningham

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:31 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

2/809

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only todelay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Kris Cunningham

142 Sims cir

Waynesville, NC 28786

From: Bernadette Francke

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:29 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

3/809

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Bernadette Francke

5555 Rivers Edge

Fallon, NV 89406

From: Dan Hale

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:27 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

4/809

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, tophase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Dan Hale

3939 Felicity Lane

3939 S. Felicity Lane, Columbia, Mo.

Columbia, MO 65203

From: Janet E. Smith

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

5/809

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Janet E. Smith

11211 55 Avenue

11211 55 Avenue

Edmonton, AB T6HOW9

From: Bruce Raymond

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:13 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both thediscussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

6/809

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Bruce Raymond

1377 Dogwood Lane

Osage Beach, MO 65065

From: Jason Roberts

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:11 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

7/809

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Jason Roberts

1820 Old U.S. Hwy 40

Columbia, MO 65202

From: Greg Leech

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:59 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

8/809

Greg Leech

12115 meridian ave. S #A8

Everett, WA 98208

From: Jeffrey Dickemann

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:47 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Dickemann

2901 Humphrey Avenue

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

9/809

2901 Humphrey Ave.

Richmond, CA 94804

From: Debra Kness

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:44 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Debra Kness

Columbia, MO 65202

From: Debra Hardin

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

10/809

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:36 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Debra Hardin

135 highway 00

Hallsville, MO 65255

From: Linda Seeley

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:34 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

11/809

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Linda Seeley

1615 Tiffany Ranch Road

217 Westmont Ave

Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

From: George Lewis

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:30 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

12/809

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

George Lewis

1852 6th St.

Los Osos, CA 93402

From: Jean Verthein

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:27 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable to a citizen living in the Indian Point shadow

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

13/809

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Jean Verthein

NY, NY 10040

From: Deni jakobsberg

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:25 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

14/809

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only todelay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Deni jakobsberg

4226 31st ST

mt. rainier, MD 20712

From: Genevieve Dennison

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:24 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

15/809

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Genevieve Dennison

2785 St. Rt. 132

New Richmond, OH 45157

From: Harry DeLano

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:20 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

16/809

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, tophase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Harry DeLano

807 Bird Ave.

Buffalo, NY 14209

From: Elizabeth Enriquez

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:00 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nye County Comments on Draft Nuclear Waste Administration Act 2013

Attachments: Nye County Comments on Draft Nuclear Waste Administration Act 2013.pdf

Please see attached comments from Nye County pertaining to the Draft Nuclear Waste AdministrationAct 2013.

Contact our office with any question or problems with attachment.

Thank you,

Elizabeth Enriquez

Administrative Secretary

Nye County NWRPO

2101 E. Calvada Blvd. Ste., 100

Pahrump, NV 89048

Direct (775) 727-3483

Office (775) 727-7727

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

17/809

Fax (775) 727-7919

From: Mait Alexander

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:24 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Mait Alexander

4175 Shawnee St

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

18/809

Moorpark, CA 93021

From: ANNE KILEY-PELLECHIA

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:55 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to drycontainers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

ANNE KILEY-PELLECHIA

10184 CTY RT 786

PULTENEY, NY 14874

From: Doreen McElvany

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

19/809

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:21 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Doreen McElvany

77 Kruse Creek Rd.

49672 hidden valley trail indian wells ca 92210

Sheridan, WY 82801

From: Elisabeth Fiekowsky

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 PM

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

20/809

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste thatexists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth Fiekowsky

PO Box 2476

Sebastopol, CA 95473

From: Bruce & Virginia Pringle

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:35 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

21/809

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Bruce & Virginia Pringle

17037 12th Pl SW

Normandy Park, WA 98166

From: MaryAnne Coyle

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:30 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

22/809

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

MaryAnne Coyle

457 Richmond Avenue

Buffalo, NY 14222

From: Liz Murphy

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:28 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

23/809

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Liz Murphy

47 Crescent Place

Monroe, CT 06468

From: Joseph Aguirre

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:13 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

24/809

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporaryand unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Joseph Aguirre

P.O. Box 280448

6229 10th St. N.

Oakdale, MN 55128

From: Libbe HaLevy

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:47 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

25/809

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Libbe HaLevy

7428 Valaho Dr.

Los angeles, CA 91042

From: David O'Byrne

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:46 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

26/809

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, tophase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

David O'Byrne

5308 Second Street

St. Augustine, FL 32080

From: Mark Haim

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:33 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

27/809

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Mark Haim

1402 Richardson

Columbia, MO 65201

From: Allison Ostrer

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:20 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Instead of moving around deadly nuclear waste, stop producing it!

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both thediscussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

28/809

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Allison Ostrer

1107 E Denny Way, #C-3

2

Seattle, WA 98122

From: Hattie nestel

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:14 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and securityshould mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporaryand unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

29/809

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Hattie nestel

athol, MA 01331

From: anita Davis

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:10 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks ofaccidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

30/809

anita Davis

1190 Gilmer drive

1190 Gilmer Drive

SLC, UT 84105

From: KRISTIN SHRADER-FRECHETTE

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste thatexists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

Dr. Maurice Shrader-Frechette

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

31/809

Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette

KRISTIN SHRADER-FRECHETTE

100 Malloy Hall

University of Notre Dame

NOTRE DAME, IN 46556

From: Beatrice Clemens

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:01 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

32/809

Beatrice Clemens

100 Arundel Place

St. Louis, MO 63105

From: John R. Acker

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:53 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

First, Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The

nation's high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy

Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution (found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative) would serve only

to delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a

temporary and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or

community should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually

ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and sustainability for the future. The bestway to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to phase out the use of nuclear

power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that exists now, Hardened On-Site

Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

John R. Acker

P.O. Box 3437

Taos, NM 87571

From: April Mondragon

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:40 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

33/809

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's

high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

IT IS TIME TO STOP URANIUM MINING- STOP PRODUCING NUCLEAR WASTE, STOP NUCLEAR ENERGY-

STOP POISONING THE AIR LAND AND WATER---STOP -- WAKE UP - YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD FOR OVER 50

YEARS BY THE HOPI AND OTHERS TO STOP !

STOP - WHAT WILL YOU TELL YOUR CHILDREN THAT YOU DID IN YOUR LIFE TO STOP THIS INSANITY !!!!

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanentlocation for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation along

public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and make it more likely that a temporary

and unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. No state or community

should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would virtually ensure that.

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the

narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a

thoughtless program. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to

phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. But for the waste that

exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over.

Sincerely,

April Mondragon

HCR 74 Box 22201

Hc 74

El Prado, NM 87529

From: Charles Johnson

8/22/2019 Nuclear Waste Bill Feedback- Part 3

34/809

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:25 PM

To: feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation'shigh-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's

"discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems.

Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at

all, and is simply unacceptable. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security

should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. While the waste will have to be moved at

some point, it should first make only the short move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry

containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent

location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of

accidents and security problems while guaranteeing increased exposure to ionizing radiation alongpublic-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident.

Further, the de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution found in both the

discussion draft and even more objectionably in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative would serve only to

delay permanent isolation of t