Comment (3) of Shannon Chu on FR Doc # 2026-11377, NRC-2026-0397-0011, from Shannon Chu
Shannon ChuOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed action because the Draft Environmental Assessment fails to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of storing additional spent fuel on-site. They argue that the Continued Storage Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) relies on outdated and invalid assumptions regarding the integrity of aging canisters and the effectiveness of current aging management programs.
Section 3.13.3 indicates that the continued storage Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) demonstrates that the continued power operations of nuclear power plants have had little or no environmental effects due to the uranium fuel cycle, spent fuel management, and transportation of fuel and waste. This is not true. The environmental impacts of on-site storage continuing indefinitely have not been demonstrated to have little or no environmental effects. The resumption of power generation at Crane Clean Energy center would result in the need for additional spent fuel to be stored on site, thus increasing the source term for potential releases that have not been analyzed. The environmental impacts of storing spent fuel on-site in canisters that have lost confinement integrity need to be analyzed. The Continued Storage GEIS relies on the assumption that aging management programs will guarantee canister confinement integrity. The manner in which implementation of aging management programs has occurred since 2009 shows that this assumption is not valid. See file for more details.