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 <krissysjake@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:31 PM 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, Kris Cunningham 142 Sims cir Waynesville, NC 28786 From: Bernadette Francke <bernabob@phonewave.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:29 PM 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, Bernadette Francke 5555 Rivers Edge Fallon, NV 89406 From: Dan Hale <danhale@centurytel.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:27 PM 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, Dan Hale 3939 Felicity Lane 3939 S. Felicity Lane, Columbia, Mo. Columbia, MO 65203 From: Janet E. Smith <jes83144@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:16 PM 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, Janet E. Smith 11211 55 Avenue 11211 55 Avenue Edmonton, AB T6HOW9 From: Bruce Raymond <original_zen@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:13 PM 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, Bruce Raymond 1377 Dogwood Lane Osage Beach, MO 65065 From: Jason Roberts <jasonr240@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:11 PM 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, Jason Roberts 1820 Old U.S. Hwy 40 Columbia, MO 65202 From: Greg Leech <greg.leech@att.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:59 PM 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,

Greg Leech 12115 meridian ave. S #A8 Everett, WA 98208 From: Jeffrey Dickemann <dicke.mannjeff@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:47 PM 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

2901 Humphrey Ave. Richmond, CA 94804 From: Debra Kness <debkness@centurylink.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:44 PM 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, Debra Kness Columbia, MO 65202 From: Debra Hardin <maidengoat@yahoo.com>

Sent: To:

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:36 PM 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, Debra Hardin 135 highway 00 Hallsville, MO 65255 From: Linda Seeley <lindaseeley@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:34 PM 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, Linda Seeley 1615 Tiffany Ranch Road 217 Westmont Ave Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 From: George Lewis <glewis@calpoly.edu> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:30 PM 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, George Lewis 1852 6th St. Los Osos, CA 93402 From: Jean Verthein <jverthein@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:27 PM 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.

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 <denise.jakobsberg@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:25 PM 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, Deni jakobsberg 4226 31st ST mt. rainier, MD 20712 From: Genevieve Dennison <grdennison@roadrunner.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:24 PM 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, Genevieve Dennison 2785 St. Rt. 132 New Richmond, OH 45157 From: Harry DeLano <hdelano@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:20 PM 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, Harry DeLano 807 Bird Ave. Buffalo, NY 14209 From: Elizabeth Enriquez <eenriquez@co.nye.nv.us> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:00 PM 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 Administration Act 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

Fax (775) 727-7919

From: Mait Alexander <mba2233@me.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:24 PM 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

Moorpark, CA 93021 From: ANNE KILEY-PELLECHIA <annekiley@creativelinkgraphics.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:55 PM 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, ANNE KILEY-PELLECHIA 10184 CTY RT 786 PULTENEY, NY 14874 From: Doreen McElvany <dormcelvany@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:21 PM 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, Doreen McElvany 77 Kruse Creek Rd. 49672 hidden valley trail indian wells ca 92210 Sheridan, WY 82801 From: Elisabeth Fiekowsky <lisny1@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 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, Elisabeth Fiekowsky PO Box 2476 Sebastopol, CA 95473 From: Bruce & Virginia Pringle <pringb@comcast.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:35 PM 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, Bruce & Virginia Pringle 17037 12th Pl SW Normandy Park, WA 98166 From: MaryAnne Coyle <mcoyle1112@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:30 PM 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, MaryAnne Coyle 457 Richmond Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222 From: Liz Murphy <lizasmurphy@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:28 PM 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, Liz Murphy 47 Crescent Place Monroe, CT 06468 From: Joseph Aguirre <glassspider2003@comcast.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:13 PM 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, Joseph Aguirre P.O. Box 280448 6229 10th St. N. Oakdale, MN 55128 From: Libbe HaLevy <breezersmom@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:47 PM 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, Libbe HaLevy 7428 Valaho Dr. Los angeles, CA 91042 From: David O'Byrne <obyrned@bellsouth.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:46 PM 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, David O'Byrne 5308 Second Street St. Augustine, FL 32080 From: Mark Haim <mhaim@riseup.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:33 PM 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, Mark Haim 1402 Richardson Columbia, MO 65201 From: Allison Ostrer <aostrer@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:20 PM 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 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, Allison Ostrer 1107 E Denny Way, #C-3 2 Seattle, WA 98122 From: Hattie nestel <Hattieshalom@verizon.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:14 PM 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, Hattie nestel athol, MA 01331 From: anita Davis <amasondavis@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:10 PM 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,

anita Davis 1190 Gilmer drive 1190 Gilmer Drive SLC, UT 84105 From: KRISTIN SHRADER-FRECHETTE <KSHRADER@ND.EDU> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:02 PM 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 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, Dr. Maurice Shrader-Frechette

Dr. Kristin Shrader-Frechette KRISTIN SHRADER-FRECHETTE 100 Malloy Hall University of Notre Dame NOTRE DAME, IN 46556 From: Beatrice Clemens <BeatriceBC@aol.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:01 PM 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,

Beatrice Clemens 100 Arundel Place St. Louis, MO 63105 From: John R. Acker <jrackertaos@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:53 PM 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 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, John R. Acker P.O. Box 3437 Taos, NM 87571 From: April Mondragon <etasinum@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:40 PM 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. IT IS TIME TO STOP URANIUM MINING- STOP PRODUCING NUCLEAR WASTE, STOP NUCLEAR ENERGYSTOP 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 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, April Mondragon HCR 74 Box 22201 Hc 74 El Prado, NM 87529 From: Charles Johnson <johnsonc20@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:25 PM 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, Charles Johnson 2206 SE Division St. Portland, OR 97202 From: Neil Bleifeld <Procrastus@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:07 PM 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, Neil Bleifeld 405 West 48th Street, #5FE New York, NY 10036 From: bonnie leigh <leighyoga@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:02 PM 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, bonnie leigh fillmore, NY 14735 From: Stephen Jordan <Stepjor@aol.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:46 AM 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, Stephen Jordan 9161 E Walnut Tree Dr Tucson, AZ 85749 From: Jonnie Head <headjonnie@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:08 AM 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, Jonnie Head Milan, NM 87021 From: Daniela Bosenius Daniela Bosenius <mail@bosenius.info> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:44 AM 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, Daniela Bosenius Daniela Bosenius Aegidiusstr. frechen, ot 50226 From: Christopher Gaffer <rhysetux@charter.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:22 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radioactive Waste 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 is charged with protection of public health and safety and security should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly is a high-security and safety risk. 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, which 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, Christopher Gaffer 412 North Broad Street Mankato, MN 56001 From: Rick Barstow <grassrootsfuel@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:28 AM 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, Rick Barstow pobox 15 980 Sodom Pond Rd. adamant, VT 05640 From: Rick Barstow <grassrootsfuel@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:28 AM 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, Rick Barstow pobox 15 980 Sodom Pond Rd. adamant, VT 05640 From: Brent Williams <bcwilliams65@insightbb.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:27 AM 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, Brent Williams 9001 Harrods Landing Dr Prospect, KY 40059 From: Edwin McGrath <eddie1247@animail.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:26 AM 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, Edwin McGrath 66 1st Avenue Albion, PA 16401 From: Frances Smith <frances.smith@frontier.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:45 AM 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, Frances Smith

Dansville, NY 14437 From: Andrea Martina <witchesincorp@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:10 AM 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, Andrea Martina berlin, ot 10965 From: Rajka Marhold <rajka.sirca@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:33 AM

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, Rajka Marhold Gallusova 5 Celje, ot 3000 From: Nick Schneider <nschnei543@aol.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:28 AM 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, Nick Schneider 4205 Roland Av. 4205 Roland Av. Bmore, MD 21210-2701 Bmore., MD 21210 From: hilary malyon <hmalyon@mindspring.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:11 AM 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, hilary malyon seminole ave 96 seminole ave 07436, NJ 07436 From: mauricio carvajal <carvaggro666@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:11 AM 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, mauricio carvajal viento norte 4018 Santiago, ot 9291583 From: Sharon Levine <sdlevine@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:07 AM 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, Sharon Levine 2384 Boalt Ave. Simi Valley, CA 93063 From: mauricio carvajal <carvaggro666@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:53 AM 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, mauricio carvajal viento norte 4018 Santiago, ot 9291583 From: Pamela Richard <treetep@peacemail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:52 AM 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, Pamela Richard 61 Summerhill Ct. Danville, CA 94526 From: richard s wilson <redneckananda@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:51 AM 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, richard s wilson 1972 zehndner ave. 1972 zehndner ave. arcata, CA 95521 From: Ruby Grad <rubygrad@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:47 AM 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, Ruby Grad 3324 NE 47th Ave. Portland, OR 97213 From: Katherine Miller <dgmandkm@san.rr.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:30 AM 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, Katherine Miller 3911 Mount Aladin Avenue San Diego, CA 92111 From: Judy W. Soffler <judywsoffler@optonline.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:02 AM 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, Judy W. Soffler 8 New City, NY 10956 From: Steven Gilbert <sgilbert@innd.org> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:02 AM 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, Steven Gilbert 3711 47th Place NE Seattle, WA 98105 From: Cynthia Almond <milliliter@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:10 PM 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, Cynthia Almond

5046 Bent Tree Ct. Rockford, IL 61114 From: Theresa Billeaud <theresa.billeaud@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:39 PM 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, Theresa Billeaud 515 S.W. 24th St. 504 Fern St.

San Antonio, TX 78207 From: colleen dietzel <greenstore1@juno.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:24 PM 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, colleen dietzel 4843 B Voltaire Stl san diego, CA 92107 From: Elizabeth Kennedy <ekennedy77721@yahoo.com>

Sent: To:

Monday, May 20, 2013 9:55 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Please, the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems of nuclear waste. We can't move lethal high-level radioactive waste around and increase the risks of accidents and security problems, increasing exposure to radiation along public-use highways, etc. We need progress on a permanent solution--not a temporary and unsuitable site that would become a permanent nuclear waste dump. I ask you to be aware that the narrow interests of the nuclear power industry would be the only beneficiary of such a thoughtless program. Please focus your time and attention on decreasing the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, Elizabeth Kennedy, ANP-BC Elizabeth Kennedy Medford, MA 02155 From: pam nelson <pamela05n@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:17 PM 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, pam nelson warner springs, CA 92086 From: Diana Trichilo <dtrichilo@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:40 PM 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, Diana Trichilo 450 Pitt Avenue #3 Sebastopol, CA 95473 From: Candy LeBlanc <telvari9@care2.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:58 PM 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, Candy LeBlanc 1525 Cold Springs Rd SPC 52 Placerville, CA 95667 From: Liz Schwartz <lizbetschwartz@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:55 PM 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, Liz Schwartz PO BOX 444 ARROYO SECO, NM 87514 From: Douglas Renick <renick.rinehart@comcast.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:53 PM 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, Douglas Renick 105 Black Birch Trail Florence, MA 01062 From: A Adams <mailndp-gop@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:41 PM 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, A Adams 20415 Via Paviso Cupertino, CA 95014 From: Cheriel Jensen <cherielj@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:40 PM 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, Cheriel Jensen

13737 Quito Saratoga, CA 95070 4752 From: Vonda Welty <vwelty@uoregon.edu> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:29 PM 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, Vonda Welty PO Box 3266/4096 E 17th Ave Eugene, OR 97403

From: Sylvia Gray <sylviaemail@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:23 PM 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, Sylvia Gray 315 1st Avenue Apt 5 315 First Avenue #5 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 From: Ramona Harragin <rasta@frontiernet.net>

Sent: To:

Monday, May 20, 2013 7:23 PM 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, Ramona Harragin PO BOX 643 GOSHEN, NY 10924 From: Lindsay Crouch <lindsaycrouch12@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:21 PM 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, Lindsay Crouch Brattleboro, VT 05301 From: Terry Burns <tbscpbsc@satx.rr.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:01 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Draft Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft legislation. I have studied the draft, and the accompanying comments.

I agree that nuclear waste storage remains a serious unsolved problem. Waste that will remain highly toxic for thousands of years is not easy to dispose of, despite decades of effort. As a result it is disingenuous to refer to nuclear power as "our greatest source of low-cost, clean, reliable electricity," as Senator Alexander does on the Committee website. Electricity production that leaves tons and tons of near eternally toxic waste is not "clean". It is also not "low-cost", as the complete inability of finding Wall Street support without Price-Anderson demonstrates. Only the taxpayers make nuclear power viable in any way, taking all the risk, financial and safety, and ultimately burdened with this horrible waste. The only real solution is to stop producing this waste as soon as possible. In the interim, surely improvements can be made. I support many of the administrative proposals in the draft. It is possible that a new independent agency, and Oversight Board, would provide better regulatory oversight of nuclear waste, especially from nuclear power plants. I strongly oppose, however, the concept of moving waste around the country, until there is an acceptable, permanent disposal repository for this waste. Moving the waste in the "interim" will not speed up the process of repository siting and development. Instead, it will only act as a favor to the nuclear power industry, removing the waste from current plant locations, to new "interim storage" locations, at taxpayer expense and removing all liability from industry to taxpayer. In addition, the development of "interim storage" sites will not in any way make current nuclear plant facilities safer. Those sites will remain highly contaminated and dangerous in the plants themselves. And spent fuel rods will still need to be kept in water cooling pools for several years prior to transfer to dry storage. I strongly urge the Senators to reorient their proposals to improve regulatory oversight and safety at the nuclear power facilities themselves. These facilities are, of course, regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has a long history of excessive closeness with the nuclear power industry, frequently overlooking serious safety and security failures etc. While the NRC may continue to oversee the power plants, I believe the proposal for a separate "Nuclear Waste Administration" could greatly improve the oversight of nuclear waste at these power plants. Spent fuel pools are becoming overcrowded with fuel rods, risking a Fukushima like meltdown. The pools are largely unprotected from possible aerial attack or other disaster. Nuclear power plant spent fuel is then transferred to dry storage canisters. I oppose the concept of trucks and trains traveling throughout the country carrying these massive Hiroshima plus hazardous objects, only for "interim storage". If it has to be done, let it only be done ONCE and never more. Until that time when there is a permanent repository for disposal of this devil's filth, it should remain at its sites of creation, in above ground, closely monitored, hardened on site storage facilities fully protected from terrorist and natural disaster.

The proposed NWA could greatly improve regulation and oversight of nuclear waste at nuclear power plants. The Senators should address nuclear waste safety as their first priority, not the financial health of the nuclear power industry. It is true taxpayers continue to bear the cost of failure to develop a permanent repository. Developing more nuclear power will never help the taxpayers, only the profits of the industry. It is manifestly not true today that nuclear power is cheap, necessary, or safe. Truly renewable energy is developing rapidly and will successfully replace this really dirty source of energy, allowing us to finally put the genie back in the bottle for our children's future health and safety. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over, emphasizing safety first. Sincerely, Terry Burns, M.D. Terry Burns 13139 Vista del Mundo San Antonio, TX 78216 From: Dale Noonkester <daleneedsthis@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:59 PM 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, Dale Noonkester P.O. Box 91 Potrero, CA 91963 From: Pat Cuviello <pcuvie@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:53 PM 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, Pat Cuviello Box 2834 Redwood City, CA 94064 From: Pat Cuviello <pcuvie@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:53 PM 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, Pat Cuviello Box 2834 Redwood City, CA 94064 From: Steve Kohn <steve@teleology.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:36 PM 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, Steve Kohn

200 Sterling Place Highland, NY 12528 From: erin yarrobino <bggr34@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:14 PM 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, erin yarrobino 84-23 109 AVE 84-23 109 ave

OZONE PARK, NY 11417 From: Nina Mojica <nrkasla@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:12 PM 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, Nina Mojica Nina Mojica 136 East 36th Street 10 a

New York, NY 10016 From: Michelle Friessen <mfriessen@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:54 PM 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, Michelle Friessen 5125 La Fiesta Dr NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 From: Katherine Miller <dgmandkm@san.rr.com>

Sent: To:

Monday, May 20, 2013 5:52 PM 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, Katherine Miller 3911 Mount Aladin Avenue San Diego, CA 92111 From: MeiLi McCann-Sayles <alanjunk@suddenlink.net> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:14 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 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, MeiLi McCann-Sayles 1696 Ocean Drive McKinleyville, CA 95519 From: Sarah Scher, MD <sarahpol@humboldt1.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:13 PM 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, Sarah Scher, MD 770 Tenth Street Arcata, CA 95521 From: Alan McCann-Sayles <alanpol@humboldt1.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:13 PM 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, Alan McCann-Sayles 1696 Ocean Drive McKinleyville, CA 95519 From: Daniel McCann-Sayles <danielms@humboldt1.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:13 PM 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, Daniel McCann-Sayles 1696 Ocean Drive McKinleyville, CA 95519 From: Perianne Walter <perianne.walter@verizon.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:08 PM 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, Perianne Walter 8 Hilltop Road Mendham, NJ 07945 From: Kelley Scanlon <rynn30@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:22 PM 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, Kelley Scanlon 281 Norwood Avenue Syracuse, NY 13206 From: Quentin Fischer <fischerq@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:16 PM 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, Quentin Fischer 2514 Sharmar Rd. Roanoke, VA 24018 From: Viviene Mann <jpurpleviv@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:12 PM 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, Viviene Mann 759 Mt. Calvary Rd Ridge Spring, SC 29129 From: mary williams <bishwake@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:11 PM 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, mary williams 1450 S. W. Temple 1992 S. 200 E., #424B salt lake, UT 84115 From: Coy Lay <SolarCoy@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:07 PM 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, Coy Lay 13635 SW 115th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 From: Rev. Jim Roberts <jarob401@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:11 PM 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,

Rev. Jim Roberts 401 Paris Av. Rockford, IL 61107 From: Patricia Baley <patricia.mcrae@unlv.edu> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:52 PM 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, Patricia Baley 4150 E. Pinecrest Circle

Las Vegas, NV 89121 From: Jennifer Lake <jenlakec21@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:50 PM 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, Jennifer Lake Taylorsville, UT 84123 From: Emily Lewis <emilygeorgialewis@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:46 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 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, Emily Lewis 20 Treehouse Circle Easthampton, MA 01027 From: andrew hanscom <prometheus@ecomail.org> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:42 PM 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, andrew hanscom w.1 st nederland, CO 80466 From: lynne taylor <lynnestuff@laurelwoodart.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:33 PM 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, lynne taylor Gaston, OR 97119 From: nahanni southern <illumination.middleway@yahoo.ca> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:21 PM 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, nahanni southern 206 Burnside w victoria, BC V9A 3C1 From: Patrick Bacon <baconia@centurylink.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:07 PM 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, Patrick Bacon 174 Dolly Road Madison, NC 27025 From: Judy Bettencourt <jcacourt@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:04 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear Waste in the NW I live in Salem, OR. My spouse fishes in the NW rivers and streams. Nuclear waste from Hanford is a concern. The tanks are falling apart and nuclear waste is leaking. Honestly, you need to approve more funding for expert advise on how to remove and contain the problem waste. This has been ongoing for years. What's the matter with you people that you cannot plan a program and implement it? Get off your rear ends,ask for more advice, make a decision and MOVE ON IT! From: David Hill <davidcitizen@msn.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:45 PM 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, David Hill 612 SE Linn St Portland, OR 97202 From: Lavina Bowman <abdarm@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:39 PM 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, Lavina Bowman 701 Antelope Drive #10 Rock Springs, WY 82901 From: Liz Murphy <lizasmurphy@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:39 PM 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, Liz Murphy 47 Crescent Place Monroe, CT 06468 From: Monica Salazar <crazynarutolover_1010@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:38 PM 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, Monica Salazar Cond. River Park Apt. O-206 Bayamon, PR 00961 From: NANCY MORRIS <ncm@w-link.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:27 PM 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, NANCY MORRIS PO BOX 60096 SEATTLE, WA 98160 From: NANCY MORRIS <ncm@w-link.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:27 PM 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, NANCY MORRIS PO BOX 60096 SEATTLE, WA 98160 From: Marie-Louise Jackson-Miller <marieljm1961@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:25 PM 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, Marie-Louise Jackson-Miller 63 Gay Street Quincy, MA 02169 From: Dean Windh <karaokeking1@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:23 PM 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, Dean Windh 7506 95th Avenue SW Lakewood, WA 98498 From: Jane Feldman <feldman.jane@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:52 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is on the wrong track Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. Two issues keep me awake at night - global warming and radwaste. We need your help! 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. 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. Dozens of independent environmental groups have endorsed hardened, on-site storage (HOSS) principles as the course of action that minimizes risk to both people and the environment. The environmental groups are free of influence from wealth-making corporations and from enabling government regulators. Please put public health and safety first and scrap your "discussion draft."

Sincerely, Jane Feldman 5901 Martita Ave 5901 Martita Ave Las Vegas, NV 89108 From: Brie Gyncild <brie@wordyfolks.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:41 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear waste bill feedback Attachments: Question1_Brie_Gyncild_Washington_resident.doc

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill. I have attached my answer and comments on question 1 in your template. I don't feel I have the expertise or experience to answer the the other questions; I leave those to people who are more deeply involved in the issues. But I feel strongly about question 1, and I appreciate your taking the time to request and read feedback. Brie Gyncild 1407 15th Ave Seattle, WA 98122From: Sent: To: Jan Tache <tache@together.net>

Monday, May 20, 2013 12:26 PM 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, Jan Tache PO Box 1210 Penn Valley, CA 95946 From: johanna robohm <johanna@livewirefarm.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:10 PM 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, johanna j. robohm johanna robohm 467 butler brook road po box 526 jacksonville, VT 05342 From: Lois Zinavage <wzinavage@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:06 PM 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, Lois Zinavage 51 Hanover-Versailles Rd. None Baltic, CT 06330 From: sharleene sherwin <sharlsher@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:02 PM 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, sharleene sherwin 6024 kantor st apt.4 apt.4 sandiego, CA 92122 From: Jennifer Scott <jjscott9@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:57 AM 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, Jennifer Scott 15930 Bayside Pointe West #703 15930 Bayside Pointe West #703 Fort Myers, FL 33908 From: Christopher Lish <lishchris@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:37 AM 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, Christopher Lish PO Box 113 Olema, CA 94950 From: Leslie Perrigo <wntrlark@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:37 AM 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, Leslie Perrigo 808 W Main St. 2 Muncie, IN 47305 From: cecile claude <ceeceecalling@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:29 AM 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, cecile claude 916 bluebird canyon dr. laguna beach, CA 92651 From: Paul Graves <pgraves@nycap.rr.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:14 AM 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, Paul Graves 15 Providence Street Albany, NY 12203 From: Leah Anne Brown <leahabrown@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:10 AM 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. Finally, when moving the waste does become necessary, publc safety will require a massive publicity campaign ahead of the move, and shutting down highways and all other routes during transport. Obviously, this will be expensive and politically unpopular. Any responsible legislation today must

mandate the publicity and safety measures, and address the funding of them, by increasing taxes on ther nuclear industry now. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, Leah Anne Brown Washington, DC 20009 From: Linda DeStefano <ldestefano3@twcny.rr.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:00 AM 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,

Linda DeStefano 5031 Onondaga Rd. 5031 Onondaga Rd., Syracuse Syracuse, NY 13215 From: David Carr <dpcmadcty@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:49 AM 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, David Carr

606 S. Dickinson St. Madison, WI 53703 From: Theresa Waldron <b.jaybird@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:36 AM 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, Theresa Waldron po boc 438 PO Box 438

Lecanto, FL 34460 From: Shirley Middleton <smiddle@me.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:15 AM 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, Shirley Middleton 53 Ridge Rd. Greenbelt, MD 20770 From: Dominick Falzone <dominick3@roadrunner.com>

Sent: To:

Monday, May 20, 2013 10:14 AM 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, Dominick Falzone 745 S. Normandie Ave. Apt. 108 Los Angeles, CA 90005 From: Amelia Ramsey-Lefevre <amelia@peaceactioncny.org> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:11 AM 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, Amelia Ramsey-Lefevre Syracuse, NY 13210 From: vicki musetti <msttvkk@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:09 AM 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, vicki musetti lopaus pt rd bernard, ME 04612 From: Joe Luca <lucaliebow@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:58 AM 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, Joe Luca Brookline, MA 02446 From: yvonne eckstein <yme@pro-ns.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:44 AM 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, yvonne eckstein 1912 dupont ave so, #407 1912 dupont ave so minneapolis, MN 55403 From: Wanda Huelsman <paigeturner45066@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:43 AM 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, Wanda Huelsman 404 Lincoln Green Dr.. Lincoln Green Dr. Dayton, OH 45449 From: Karen Miller <krisepoo@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:18 AM 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, Karen Miller 129 Martha Dr Corpus Christi, TX 78418 From: Mollie Schierman <mollie.schierman@co.anoka.mn.us> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:18 AM 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, Mollie Schierman 4146 Zenith Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 From: Linda Burton <linburton42@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:04 AM 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, Linda Burton 1408 spring st radford, VA 24141 From: Bozena Grossman <bozenag51@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:01 AM 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, Bozena Grossman 211East 7th Street Brooklyn, NY 11218 From: Kathleen Morris <kmorris@ohnurses.org> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:00 AM 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, Kathleen Morris

181 E. Beechwold Blvd. Columbus, OH 43214 From: Keith Fabing <keithfabing@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:45 AM 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, Keith Fabing 4816 S. Alaska Street Seattle, WA 98118

From: Erma Lewis <elewisny@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:44 AM 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, Erma Lewis 1736 63 Street 1736 63 Street Brooklyn, NY 11204 From: Sylvia Richey <srichey7@hotmail.com>

Sent: To:

Monday, May 20, 2013 8:27 AM 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, Sylvia Richey 7410 Lake Breeze Dr. Fort Myers, FL 33907 From: Carolyn Friedman <chiroangel@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:20 AM 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, Carolyn Friedman P.O. Box 17 P.O. Box 17 Willow, NY 12495 From: Gary Williamson <Gmson@att.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:16 AM 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, Gary Williamson 5 Sixteenth Green Ct Belleville, IL 62220 From: Elizabeth Williams <wethbilliams@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:15 AM 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, Elizabeth Williams 4469 Sedgwick St., N.W. Washington, DC 20016 From: Jessica Thompson <jesshu@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:51 AM 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, Jessica Thompson PO Box 79 New Harmony, IN 47631 From: Hattie nestel <Hattieshalom@verizon.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:47 AM 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, Hattie nestel athol, MA 01331 From: alice slater <aslater@rcn.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:36 AM 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, alice slater 446 e 86 st ny NY, NY 10028 From: Darrel Easter <deaster@netzero.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:06 AM 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, Darrel Easter 3165 Woodsman LN Bartlett, TN 38135 From: Michelle Six <dragonflei22@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:46 AM 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, Michelle Six 400 Taylor Dr apt 402 Port Byron, IL 61275 From: D P <pdesai@care2.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:37 AM 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, DP 3 F, FL 33301 From: Ronald Hurston <Rhur@msn.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 6:04 AM 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, Ronald Hurston 29 shaw drive Wayland, MA 01778 From: Margaret Runfors <murun53@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:59 AM 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, Margaret Runfors

Tunnlandsgatan 24b rebro, ot +46 From: Ludger Wilp <enoeno@web.de> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:31 AM 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, Ludger Wilp Poettering 21 Poettering 21

Bottrop, ot 46244 From: MargaretAnn Bowers <pocomotion8@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 5:14 AM 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. ToXic industry with NO PROPER Elimination Process blew a gasket...all over big-money, false-energy addicts. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, MargaretAnn Bowers 433 N Geneva St Ithaca, NY 14850

From: D P <pdesai@care2.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 4:05 AM 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, DP 3 F, FL 33301 From: John Herbert <jharlanherb@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:43 AM

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. Ron Wyden, you need to represent us in Oregon and protect all Americans' safety by not moving this stuff more than once. Sincerely, John Herbert 11935 SW Edgewood Portland, OR 97225 From: Deena Brazy <dbrindl@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:58 AM 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, Deena Brazy 5305 Loruth Ter Madison, WI 53711 From: Frances Frainaguirre <jaguirrejja@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 2:02 AM 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, Frances Frainaguirre 1840 W 40th Denver, CO 80211 From: LuMarion Conklin <conklinlu@npgcable.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 1:21 AM 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, LuMarion Conklin 3114 Loma Vista Dr. 3114 Loma Vista Dr. Flagstaff, AZ, AZ 86004 From: LynMarie Berntson <rlbernt@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:52 AM 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, LynMarie Berntson 6697 Boyd Ave 6697 Boyd Ave Eden Prairie, MN 55346 From: Lauren Graham <laurendonna@hotmail.co> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:31 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Lauren Graham PO Box 420121 San Francisco, CA 94142 From: Krisha Jade Cantwell <way_out_is_in@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:24 AM 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, Krisha Jade Cantwell Orlando, FL 32804 From: Teresa Anderson <teresa5916@aol.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:15 AM 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, Teresa Anderson 11677 Marietta Ave Clovis, CA 93619 From: Margaret Copi <tango.lindygirl@gmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:05 AM 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, Margaret Copi 3426 Adell Ct Oakland, CA 94602 From: Susan Fleming <susanlfleming@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:00 AM 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, Susan Fleming 1856 Maple Glen Drive Plainfield, IL 60586 From: Lisa Cohen <Lisa@thecohenfamily.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:52 PM 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, Lisa Cohen 179 OLD POST RD N 179 Old Post Road North CROTON ON HUDSON, NY 10520 From: David Starr <David@BerkshireNatural.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:49 PM 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,

David Starr 102 Bancroft Rd. Northampton, MA 01060 From: Karen Orchard <Orchard543@aol.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:49 PM 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, Karen Orchard 722 Upper Third St

Kellogg, ID 83837 From: Colleen Lobel <clobel1@san.rr.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:36 PM 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, Colleen Lobel 8111 Kenova St San Diego CA 92126, CA 92126

From: Mona Kool-Harrington <koolharrington@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:32 PM 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, Mona Kool-Harrington 424 Elm Street Phoenix, OR 97535 From: Martha Milne <milnemw@netzero.net> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:20 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 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, Martha Milne 1764 Braman Av. Fort Myers, FL 33901 From: Jack Hinds <hstuffope@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:09 PM 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, Jack Hinds 12 Dogwood Meadows Ln Stuart, VA 24171 From: Rebecca Hoeschler <rshoeschler@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:57 PM 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, Rebecca Hoeschler 328 E. Imperial Ave., No. 5 El Segundo, CA 90245 From: Kashka Kubzdela <kubz@aya.yale.edu> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:36 PM 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, Kashka Kubzdela 2721 Clarkes Landing Dr. Oakton VA 22124, VA 22124 From: Jacqueline Ayala <jacquelinef.ayala@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:33 PM 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, Jacqueline Ayala 917 NE 42nd PL Homestead, FL 33033 From: Gaia Mika <gaia.mika@colorado.edu> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:32 PM 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, Gaia Mika 425 Valverde Commons Dr Taos, NM 87571 From: Tom Wenzel <tomwenzel@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:28 PM 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, Tom Wenzel 2063 Meadowbrook rd. Prescott, AZ 86303 From: Lisa Witham <lisa4809@att.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:24 PM 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, Lisa Witham 5980 Marine Pkwy D117 Mentor on the Lake, OH 44060 From: Martin Landa <marty@faceuptopeace.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:19 PM 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, Martin Landa Siesta Lane 2137 Savannah River Street Sedona, AZ 86351 From: Linda Fair <lindafair@taosnet.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:11 PM 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, Linda Fair PO Box 156 El Prado, NM 87529 From: Sylvan Grey <lenrivers@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:27 PM 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,

Sylvan Grey 4826 SE 76th Ave Portland, OR 97206 From: Joy Hoover <j.melba.hoover@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:27 PM 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, Joy Hoover 3395 Via Barba

3395 Via Barba Lompoc, CA 93436 From: marcia bailey <marciabcelo@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:22 PM 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, marcia bailey 1270 Cabbage Patch Rd Burnsville, NC 28714

From: Julien Kaven Parcou <jkparcou@seychelles.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:09 PM 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, Julien Kaven Parcou P.O. Box 559, Victoria House P.O. Box 559, Victoria House Victoria, ot 00248 From: Amy Agigian <agigian@mac.com>

Sent: To:

Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:05 PM 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, Amy Agigian 33 Corinthian Road 33 Corinthian Road Somerville, MA 02144 From: BB Nibbom <bbnibbom@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:00 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, BB Nibbom Del Mar, CA 92014 From: Lizabeth Rogers <Ladylz428@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:51 PM 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, Lizabeth Rogers 650-102 Brocton Ct Long Beach, CA 90803 From: Rosalind Newton <zenmasteress@aol.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:39 PM 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, Rosalind Newton 1697 Warwick Avenue 21697 Warwick Ave Warwick, RI 02889 From: Anne Craig <ennagiarc@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:38 PM 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, Anne Craig 132 Murdock Ave. 132 Murdock Ave. Asheville, NC 28801 From: jamie clemons <ghostlly@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:36 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable We should have learned from Fukushima that nuclear waste storage is dangerous. 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, jamie clemons 8 south randall road 8 south randall road AURORA, IL 60506 From: paul gallimore <paul@longbrancheec.org> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:34 PM 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, paul gallimore 278 Boyd Cove Rd. POB 369 leicester, NC 28748 From: Kassy Killey <kassyc@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:27 PM 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, Kassy Killey 1703 W Queens Court Road Peoria, IL 61614 From: Randi Perkins <randi.perkins@charter.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:25 PM 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, Randi Perkins 10009 Old Morro Rd East Atascadero, CA 93422 From: richard rushforth <vanmonk@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:21 PM 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, richard rushforth 14 cuesta road santa fe, NM 87508 From: Jessica Fondy <j_fondy@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:19 PM 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, Jessica Fondy 1835 Arlington Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15210 From: Joy Martin <joyjoytotheworld@cs.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:18 PM 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, Joy Martin 4143 Federer 4143 Federer St Louis, MO 63116 From: Judy Taylor <parrisjt@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:11 PM 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, Judy Taylor 135 Coles Neck Rd. Wellfleet, MA 02667 From: Lenore Baum <lenoreandjoe@charter.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:10 PM 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,

Lenore Baum 164 Ox Creek Road Weaverville, NC 28787 From: Robin Bee <rentalsatrobinbee@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:02 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Your 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, Robin Bee 1430 Willamette street

Eugene, OR 97401 From: Terry Ermini <savitriermini@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:01 PM 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, Terry Ermini 2330 Hurley Way 2443 Fair Oaks Blvd., #206 Sacramento, CA 95825

From: Martha E. Martin <mauimartha@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It is of utmost priority. The nation's high-level radioactive waste program is a failure, 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. 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 both increase the risks of accidents and security problems and also guarantee increased exposure to ionizing radiation along public-use highways, rails and waterways-even without an accident. Creating another interim storage site blocks progress on choosing a permanent nuclear waste site. . No state or community should or would accept such an outcome--yet this proposed legislation would result in 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, Martha E. Martin P.O.Box 790300 PO Box 790300, Paia, HI 96779 Paia, HI 96779 From: Martha Izzo <marthalovesoso@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:47 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, Martha Izzo Kinney Creek Evergreen, CO 80439 From: Cynthia Fisk <cynthfi@verizon.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:47 PM 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, Cynthia Fisk 27 Chapel St. Gloucester, MA 01930 From: Julie English <speak4animals2@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:25 PM 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, Julie English 4234 Elkorn Blvd Sacramento, CA 95835 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:17 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: maxine priest <agehapriest@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:16 PM 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, maxine priest 2618 mlk blvd new orleans, LA 70113 From: Kerry Cooke <kvcooke@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:13 PM 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, Kerry Cooke 4002 Albion St 83705 Boise, ID 83705 From: Walt Kleine <Wkleine@netwiz.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:12 PM 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, Walt Kleine 3267 Hollis Oakland, CA 94608 From: Claudine Cremer <cpcremer@frontier.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:12 PM 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, Claudine Cremer 260 Dula Springs Road Weaverville, NC 28787 From: L. Watchempino <5000wave@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:11 PM 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, L. Watchempino P.O. Box 407 Pueblo of Acoma, NM 87034 From: Susan Clark <susan.g.clark@embarqmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:04 PM 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, Susan Clark 168 W. Valley Brook Rd. Califon, NJ 07830 From: James Amory <cheeseresource@me.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:01 PM 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, James Amory

RR 2, Box 71-A1 63 Cheddar Lane Leraysville, PA 18829 From: Tara Verbridge <taraverbridge@yahoo.ca> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:00 PM 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, Tara Verbridge 1345 Wescot

Windsor, MI 48004 From: Casey Wittmier <catguy41@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:52 PM 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, Casey Wittmier N/A, OR 97394 From: gerry collins <coronadofirst@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:46 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 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, gerry collins 25222 madron Murrieta, CA 92563 From: Lynn Elliott <craper@nc.rr.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:45 PM 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, Lynn Elliott 2614 Woodmont Dr Durham, NC 27705 From: tara hands <tarahands@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:44 PM 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, tara hands 2002 Countryside Place SE Smyrna, GA 30080 From: Connie Raper <ckraper@nc.rr.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:44 PM 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, Connie Raper 2614 Woodmont Dr Durham, NC 27705 From: lydia garvey <wolfhowlmama@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:37 PM 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, lydia garvey 429 s 24th st Clinton, OK 73601 From: mark & susan glasser <mark7glasser@ca.rr.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:35 PM 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, mark & susan glasser 3660 barry ave LA, CA 90088 From: mark & susan glasser <mark7glasser@ca.rr.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:35 PM 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, mark & susan glasser 3660 barry ave LA, CA 90088 From: Karin Zambrano <rockera1978@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:33 PM 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, Karin Zambrano 262 Taaffe place Brooklyn, NY 11205 From: Charles Woodliff <ps_122841791@care2.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:26 PM 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, Charles Woodliff 119 Boxwood Avenue Cornelia, GA 30531 From: Jane Davidson <romjulcat@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:23 PM 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, Jane Davidson 435 Valley View Road Englewood, NJ 07631 From: richard rushforth <vanmonk@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:23 PM 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, richard rushforth

14 cuesta road santa fe, NM 87508 From: Felice Nord <F_Nord@msn.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:20 PM 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, Felice Nord 11 Mountain View Dr Weaverville, NC 28787

From: Edith Kantrowitz <reweaving@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:19 PM 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, Edith Kantrowitz 333 McDonald Avenue - #5D Brooklyn, NY 11218 From: Jeanne Gallo, Ph.D. <gritarenow@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 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. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, Jeanne Gallo, Ph.D. Gloucester, MA 01930 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:09 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:08 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:05 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: philip bates <tampabates@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:05 PM 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, philip bates seffner, FL 33584 From: Judy Krach <JHawk3989@aol.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:04 PM 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, Judy Krach 3517 Bordeaux Court hazel crest, IL 60429 From: Judy Krach <JHawk3989@aol.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:04 PM 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, Judy Krach 3517 Bordeaux Court hazel crest, IL 60429 From: Robert Orlando <robhood00@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:03 PM 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, Robert Orlando 4705 State Highway 28 4705 State Highway 28 Cooperstown, NY 13326 From: Janet Draper <jntdraper@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:01 PM 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, Janet Draper 1825 Dunedin Ave. Duluth, MN 55803 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:00 PM 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,

jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:52 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court

Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: Kirk Miller <kirkmiller3@juno.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:47 PM 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, Kirk Miller 517 Cap Rock Drive Richardson, TX 75080 From: Patricia Schoenberger <spacedgirlhero@msn.com>

Sent: To:

Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:44 PM 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, Patricia Schoenberger 13670 Valley View Road #114 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 From: Bruce Barry <bkbarry@suffolk.lib.ny.us> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:41 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Bruce Barry 20 Black Locust Ave East Setauket, NY 11733 From: Whitney Metz <whitneythedryad@vegemail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:39 PM 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, Whitney Metz 100 1/2 East Main Street Mannington, WV 26582 From: Debra Tate <dttomatoes@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:38 PM 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, Debra Tate PO Box 788 Gibsonton, FL 33534 From: Dale Noonkester <daleneedsthis@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:30 PM 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, Dale Noonkester P.O. Box 91 Potrero, CA 91963 From: Dale Noonkester <daleneedsthis@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:30 PM 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, Dale Noonkester P.O. Box 91 Potrero, CA 91963 From: Dale Noonkester <daleneedsthis@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:30 PM 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, Dale Noonkester P.O. Box 91 Potrero, CA 91963 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:22 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: martha leahy <martha638@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:18 PM 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, martha leahy 39 lockeland rd 39 lockeland rd winchester, MA 01890 From: Karen Peralta <karenperalta51@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:15 PM 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, Karen Peralta PO Box 82876 #8 Kenmore, WA 98028 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:04 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: karen stickney <kstick35@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:52 PM 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, karen stickney 27 baril street lewiston, ME 04240 From: Vic Macks <vicmacks3@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:52 PM 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, Vic Macks

20318 Edmunton 20318 Edmunton St. Clair Shores, MI 48080 From: D. Singer <singerde@ymail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:49 PM 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, D. Singer Oakland, CA 94607

From: Catherine George <cathygeorge@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:48 PM 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, Catherine George 1836 Locust Street Address Line 2 Napa, CA 94559 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net>

Sent: To:

Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:36 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: Alexa Garcia <alexagenon@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:33 PM 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, Alexa Garcia 4002 SE 28TH PL Portland, OR 97202 From: Donna Shroyer <d_shroyer@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:22 PM 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, Donna Shroyer Meeker, CO 81641 From: Thomas Paulson <tomwp577@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:21 PM 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, Thomas Paulson 719 Normandie Drive not applicable Norman, OK 73072 From: Erik Hoffner <ehoffner@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:17 PM 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, Erik Hoffner 795 Ashfield Mtn Rd 795 Ashfield Mtn Rd Ashfield, MA 01330 From: HANNAH FREED <girlinterrupted@mail2world.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:07 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, HANNAH FREED 145 S. Holliston, Apt E Pasadena, CA 91106 From: Judy Nakadegawa <jnakadegawa@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:47 PM 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, Judy Nakadegawa 751 The Alameda Berkeley, CA 94707 From: Dean Silver <dean@silvagio.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:45 PM 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, Dean Silver 1035 Timberline Ter Ashland, OR 97520 From: Derek Stockdale <delstockdale@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:43 PM 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, Derek Stockdale 13 Deanfield Bangor, CA 90210 From: Janet Maker <jamaker2001@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:41 PM 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, Janet Maker 925 Malcolm Ave 925 malcolm av Los Angeles, CA 90024 From: Stuart McDonald <sam3915@q.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:40 PM 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, Stuart McDonald 448 Sego Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84111 From: Rheta Johnson <rheta.johnson@me.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:36 PM 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, Rheta Johnson 8033 Cobble Creek Circle Potomac, MD 20854 From: Lynn Walker <mooncrone@mac.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:36 PM 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,

Lynn Walker 15901 Corsica Ave Cleveland, OH 44110 From: Helena Wu <Helena@goodmedicinetree.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:32 PM 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, Helena Wu 121 Chaves Rd.

Londonderry, VT 05148 From: Linda Brebner <lbbreb@aol.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:16 PM 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, Linda Brebner 254 Highland Parkway Rochester, NY 14620 From: karol benner <karolbenner@cox.net>

Sent: To:

Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:03 PM 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, karol benner 108 del cabo san clemente, CA 92673 From: Lorraine Caputo <lcaputoc@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:50 PM 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, Lorraine Caputo POB 268 POB 268 Columbia, MO 65205 From: eileen schmitz <eileenmschmitz@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:50 PM 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, eileen schmitz 1429 monterey dr. monterey drive santa fe, NM 87505 From: Louisa Cohen <louisacvegas@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:45 PM 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, Louisa Cohen 700 Carnegie St #1113 Henderson, NV 89052 From: Vicky Hicks <hicks@bluemarble.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:44 PM 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, Vicky Hicks 6610 Knob Creek road Heltonville, IN 47436 From: Thomas Driscoll <thomasdriscoll4@msn.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:34 PM 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, Thomas Driscoll 9 Spinney Way Huyton Liverpool, ot L36 4PG From: Michelle Krysztopik <michelleKry@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:26 PM 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, Michelle Krysztopik 11811 Blythewood San Antonio, TX 78249 From: Daviana Rowe <davianarowe@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:21 PM 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, Daviana Rowe 22 Coral Place Greenwood Vlg., CO 80111 From: Liz Schwartz <lizbetschwartz@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:20 PM 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, Liz Schwartz PO BOX 444 ARROYO SECO, NM 87514 From: Richard Kollmar <rtkollmar@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:07 PM 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, Richard Kollmar 1101 Iris Ln Address Line 2 Santa Cruz, CA 95062 From: JoAn Saltzen <jsaltzen@cal.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:04 PM 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, JoAn Saltzen 3223 Morro Bay Avenue Davis, CA 95616 From: Barbara Mckay <barbara-mckay@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:01 PM 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, Barbara Mckay 1710 Greenbush Rd. N Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 From: adene katzenmeyer <adene@cot.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:58 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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,

adene katzenmeyer 5016 solus weed, CA 96094 From: gene burke <burkegene@msn.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:58 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over!? Thank you if you can do that please. Sincerely, gene burke woodland hills, CA 91365 From: Lisa Wolf <chocolatenibs@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:55 PM 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, Lisa Wolf Framingham, MA 01701 From: bert marian <medicinebear@roadrunner.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:44 PM 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, bert marian 168 water st none addison, ME 04606 From: Francine Ungaro <fbungaro@cox.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:38 PM 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, Francine Ungaro 639 Andrews Street Southington, CT 06489 From: D. Leo-Thiha Ike <darcyike@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:36 PM 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, D. Leo-Thiha Ike 4754 Idaho St Saan Diego, CA 92116 From: Robert Hall <rh@solaritis.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:31 PM 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, Robert Hall

15531 42nd Rd N Loxahatchee, FL 33470 From: Samantha Shattuck <smshattuck916@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:31 PM 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, Samantha Shattuck auburn, CA 95603 From: Aubrey Wulfsohn <awu@maths.warwick.ac.uk>

Sent: To:

Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:23 PM 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, Aubrey Wulfsohn 19 Warwick Place 19 Warwick Place Leamungton spa, ot CV32 5BS From: Craig Rhodes <craigrhodes@djklink.net> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:14 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 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, Craig Rhodes 3883 Mt. Pleasant Rd. Brookport, IL 62910 From: Susan De Vos <mabaa@tds.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:58 AM 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, Susan De Vos 610 N. Midvale Blvd. Madison, WI 53705 From: Kittredge Cherry <happynowxx@aol.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:53 AM 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, Kittredge Cherry 1328 Montecito Circle Los Angeles, CA 90031 From: Vera Cousiins <vcousins1@iowatelecom.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:10 AM 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, Vera Cousiins 903 16th Ave. 903 16th Ave. Grinnell, IA 50112 From: Anne Padilla <groesa@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:42 AM 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, Anne Padilla 2100 Calle de la Vuelta Santa Fe, NM 87505 From: Barbara Oneal <barbaraoneal@embarqmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:25 AM 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, Barbara Oneal 173 Roy Duncan Lane 173 Roy Duncan Lane Erwin, TN 37650 From: David Loiselle <dave.loiselle@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:24 AM 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, David Loiselle 402 North English Hill Hillsborough, NC 27278 From: Lorenz Steininger <schreibdemstein@posteo.de> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:16 AM 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, Lorenz Steininger Waldstr Hohenwart, VA 22554 From: Margaret Dunn <dunrovin20032003@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:12 AM 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. This kind of nonsense was tried years ago with the white trains and white unlabeled trucks that transported nuclear waste throughout the country; it didn't work then because of all the activists that stopped them. So why are you trying it again??? Margaret Dunn Margaret Dunn W4009 12th Rd. 307 N. Rush St. Montello, WI 53949 From: Jerry Mawhorter <head424@wowway.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:08 AM 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, Jerry Mawhorter 200 Linden Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48073 From: Seth Rutledge <thesniffingratty@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:41 AM 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, Seth Rutledge 611 S Beech St Syracuse, NY 13210 From: marcia hart <marciahart@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:30 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste 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. 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, marcia hart 2 Fremont St. Gloucester, MA 01930 From: Areil Larsen <greendaybeatle13@hotmail.com>

Sent: To:

Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:33 AM 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, Areil Larsen 382 Lemon Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 From: Marialoreto Landi <marialoretolandi@libero.it> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:12 AM 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, Marialoreto Landi fisciano salerno Salerno, ot 84084 From: Nancy Neumann <NancyNeumann@t-online.de> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:34 AM 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, Nancy Neumann Graugasse 1 Zornheim, ot 55270 From: Ludger Wilp <enoeno@web.de> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:26 AM 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, Ludger Wilp Poettering 21 Poettering 21 Bottrop, ot 46244 From: Ludger Wilp <enoeno@web.de> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:26 AM 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, Ludger Wilp Poettering 21 Poettering 21 Bottrop, ot 46244 From: Flora Pino Garca <florapino@bme.es> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:12 AM 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, Flora Pino Garca Alameda del Valle, Madrid, Espa, ot 28749 From: Bob Fay <RFay808700@aol.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:12 AM 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, Bob Fay 4000 24th St.N. Lot 1108 St. Petersburg, FL 33714 From: Christopher Panayi <immortal1958@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:28 AM 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, Christopher Panayi 4, Devon Lodge, Carlton Hill, Brighton,, ot BN2 0HF From: Bill Evans <billev@efn.org> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:12 AM 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. Thank you for your Attention, Sincerely, Bill Evans 2925 Durbin St Eugene, OR 97405 From: John and Martha Stoltenberg <jpstolten@frontier.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:55 AM 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, John and Martha Stoltenberg N8362 State Highway 67 P.O. Box 596 Elkhart Lake, WI 53020 From: Virginia H. Bennett <vbennett@hawaii.edu> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:47 AM 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, Virginia H. Bennett 1201 Wilder Ave. #1704 #1704 Honolulu, HI 96822 From: Mrs.Sunil G.M. <sunilgmbm@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:01 AM 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, Mrs.Sunil G.M. Near St.Paul's Cathedral New York, NY 10007 From: Liana Wong <sakura_bear71@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:00 AM 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, Liana Wong 1086 Vista Grande Millbrae, CA 94030 From: Michelle Buerger <stargirl_46@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:10 AM 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. Thank you. Sincerely,

Michelle Buerger 50 Schroeder Ct. #104 Madison, WI 53711 From: Carol Huntsman <chuntsman@san.rr.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:55 AM 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, Carol Huntsman 2750 Wheatstone St.#30

2750 wheatstone St.#30 San Diego, CA 92111 From: Katharine Kagel <kkagel@cybermesa.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:47 AM 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, Katharine Kagel 121 Don Gaspar Street 121 Don Gaspar

Santa Fe, NM 87501 From: Susannah Mills <sooz@sonic.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:46 AM 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, Susannah Mills Box # 402 Bolinas, CA 94924 From: Janet Neihart <janeihart66@aol.com>

Sent: To:

Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:43 AM 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, Janet Neihart 6751 Geneva Ave. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 From: Suzy R <sfr@nj.rr.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:38 AM 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, Suzy R One Main St New York, NY 10101 From: Marilyn Hoff <marigayl@netzero.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:31 AM 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, Marilyn Hoff PO Box 295, El Prado, NM El Prado, NM 87529 From: Party Hannigan <pattyhannigan@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:31 AM 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. B 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, Party Hannigan 19 nickell Rd Ranchos de Taos, NM 87557 From: Margaret Kuchnia <aumuma@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:25 AM 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, Margaret Kuchnia 5228 E. Falls View Dr. San Diego, CA 92115 From: Kristin Womack <kristinwomack@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:00 AM 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, Kristin Womack 396 San Francisco Boulevard San Anselmo, CA 94960 From: Garland Cole <garland.cole@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:00 AM 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, Garland Cole 457 W. 28th St. 1FL chicago, IL 60616 From: Esther Zamora <ezjamoca@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:55 AM 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, Esther Zamora 12456 Los Moras Way Victorville, CA 92392 From: Denise Lytle <centauress6@live.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:52 AM 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, Denise Lytle 73 Poplar St. Fords, NJ 08863 From: Don McKelvey <donmckelvey38@gmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:02 AM 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, Don McKelvey 20950 Priday Ave Euclid, OH 44123 From: Bryna Pizzo <brynapizzo@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:01 AM 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, Bryna Pizzo 4414 Gemini Dr. St. Louis, MO 63128 From: George Gallagher <george19054@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:57 PM 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, George Gallagher

28 Full Turn Rd 28 Full Turn Rd Levittown, PA 19056 From: Stephen Schenck <stephens@xemaps.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:56 PM 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, Stephen Schenck PO Box 397

Simi Valley, CA 93062 From: Ralph Alvarez <rja19@att.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:33 PM 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, Ralph Alvarez 6 Scenic Pond Drive 6 Scenic Pond Drive Warwick, NY 10990

From: Carol Elliott <carolrelliott@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:22 PM 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, Carol Elliott 1648 32nd st San Diego, CA 92102 From: Bryn Hammarstrom <bryn@epix.net> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:17 PM

To:

feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable As an RN, and parent of two daughters, I 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, Bryn Hammarstrom R.D.#2 Middlebury Ctr, PA 16935 From: Janet Neihart <janeihart66@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:16 PM 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, Janet Neihart 6751 Geneva Ave. So. Cottage Grove, MN 55016 From: dale saltzman <dalesaltzman1@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:07 PM 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, dale saltzman yorktown, NY 10598 From: Kenneth Mills <millskenneth@comcast.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:59 PM 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, Kenneth Mills 1 Seattle, WA 98125 From: Linda Jarsky <sserenity12@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:53 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Martin Luther King Jr. is quoted as saying, Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. 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. Martin Luther King Jr. is quoted as saying, Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. Sincerely, Linda Jarsky 705 Pine Street 705 Pine Street Port Huron, MI 48060 From: Crystal Conklin <eidhlyn@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:48 PM 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, Crystal Conklin 5902 W Royal Palm #82 Glendale, AZ 85302 From: anita simons <asimonsays@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:46 PM 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, anita simons 2217 caminito preciosa sur la jolla, CA 92037 From: karen ambrose <karennandini@yahoo.co.in> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:37 PM 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, karen ambrose 217 arbolado drive 217 arbolado drive la selva beach, CA 95076 From: Unplug Salem <rmlerario@msn.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:26 PM 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, Unplug Salem 2 Woodhurst Court Eastampton, NJ 08060 From: Rosemarie Sawdon <sawdon@msn.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:22 PM 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, Rosemarie Sawdon 1201 Harvest Ridge Lane Blacksburg, VA 24060 From: Thomas Ambrogi <tambrogi@verizon.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:10 PM 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, Thomas Ambrogi 737 Alden Road 737 Alden Road Claremont, CA, CA 91711 From: Rachel Garibay-Wynnberry <rachelgaribay@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:07 PM 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, Rachel Garibay-Wynnberry 33 3342 Yonge Ave. Sarasota, FL 34235 From: Lee Bailey <ladibg@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:54 PM 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, Lee Bailey 700 Warren Av ithaca, NY 14850 From: Russ Berger <rgberger@cableone.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:49 PM 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, Russ Berger

5639 E. Gateway Dr. Boise, ID 83716 From: Dian Berger <dianberger@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:49 PM 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, Dian Berger 5639 E. Gateway Dr. Boise, ID 83716

From: Marie Steckler <mariesteckler@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:32 PM 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, Marie Steckler 515 NerinxRoad 515 Nerinx Road Nerinx, KY 40049 From: Sara Williams <wickedbeatles@aol.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:31 PM 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, Sara Williams 9634 Oak Glen Road Cherry Valley, CA 92223 From: Doris Lehr <dorislehr@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:25 PM 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, Doris Lehr 58-13 213 St Bayside Hills, NY 11364 1827 From: ute trowell <utesdogs2@yahoo.co.uk> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:18 PM 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, ute trowell kalymnos, ot 85200 From: Tom Wenzel <tomwenzel@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:18 PM 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, Tom Wenzel 2063 Meadowbrook rd. Prescott, AZ 86303 From: Anthony Iacono <dkong1190@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:08 PM 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, Anthony Iacono 1024 Avenue W Brooklyn, NY 11223 From: Julien Kaven Parcou <jkparcou@seychelles.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:08 PM 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, Julien Kaven Parcou P.O. Box 559, Victoria House P.O. Box 559, Victoria House Victoria, ot 00248 From: Bruce Giudici <bgiudici@caltel.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:05 PM 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, Bruce Giudici 8572 Goggin St Valley Spgs, CA 95252 From: Beth Sutton <bas@enkieducation.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:05 PM 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, Beth Sutton 97 Verndale Ave Providence, RI 02905 From: Todd Fry <tafry@neo.rr.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:01 PM 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, Todd Fry 505 Sloane Ave. Mansfield, OH 44903 From: Catherine Ziurella <volartez@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:42 PM 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. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS UNSAFE AND EXPENSIVE OVER LONG-TERM. THE OCONEE PLANT IN SC IS CLOSE TO A Fukushima DISASTER IF THE DAM BREAKS OR OVERFLOWS. CITIZENS FROM HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY SHOULD SIT ON THE BOARD OF ALL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO KEEP THEM SAFE. BETTER YET, REPLACE NUCLEAR POWER WITH SOLAR AND WIND AND PROTECT OUR LIVES AND THE PLANET NOW! Sincerely, Catherine Ziurella Catherine Ziurella 110 S. Manhattan Ave. Apt. 77 Tampa, FL 33609 From: susan peirce <speirce@prodigy.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:36 PM 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, susan peirce 143 Eagle Feather Way Lyons, CO 80540 From: kimberly skarda anderson <kimskarda@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:29 PM 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, kimberly skarda anderson 14 opal commons eastsound, WA 98245 From: Cathy Lester <catlest@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:24 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:"Interim" Radwaste storage is unacceptable I understand that we have to do something about the radioactive waste problem. Thank you for focusing on it. It should be of utmost priority. However,l having looked at the draft, I am afraid 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, Cathy Lester 605 Park Street Grayling, MI 49738 From: lydia garvey <wolfhowlmama@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:19 PM 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, lydia garvey 429 s 24th st Clinton, OK 73601 From: Norm Littlejohn <norm.littlejohn@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:19 PM 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, Norm Littlejohn

Madison, WI 53703 From: Betty J. Van Wicklen <g10121@care2.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15 PM 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, Betty J. Van Wicklen 41 Lake Shore Dr. #2B Watervliet, NY 12189 From: Judy Coleman <jacoleman@peacemail.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:14 PM 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, Judy Coleman 7634 Hamilton St. Omaha, NE 68114 From: Natalie Van Leekwijck <hoepagirl@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:43 PM 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, Natalie Van Leekwijck Beaverton, OR 97005 From: Whitney Nieman <wmsea@taosnet.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:39 PM 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, Whitney Nieman PO Box 357 El Prado, NM 87529 From: Dolores O'Dowd <sda_albion@rochester.rr.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:39 PM 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, Dolores O'Dowd Caroline caroline Albion, NY 14411 From: Jan Reynolds <janreynolds1111@att.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:37 PM 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, Jan Reynolds 1412 W. 12th Street Bloomington, IN 47404 From: Phil Lusk <plusk@pipeline.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:34 PM 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, Phil Lusk 404 S Washington Street 82 Westwind Drive Port Angeles, WA 98362 From: Phil Lusk <plusk@pipeline.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:34 PM 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, Phil Lusk 404 S Washington Street 82 Westwind Drive Port Angeles, WA 98362 From: Martin Landa <marty@faceuptopeace.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:26 PM 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, Martin Landa Siesta Lane 2137 Savannah River Street Sedona, AZ 86351 From: Jonathan Baker <jbakerjonathan@netscape.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:18 PM 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, Jonathan Baker 920 Naugles Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 From: Paul White <Paul.a.white@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:16 PM 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, Paul White 289 south 200 east Apt 2 Cedar city, UT 84720 From: Nancy Black <themotheriam@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:11 PM 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, Nancy Black 26 Gum Tree Pl St. Charles, MO 63301 From: Dennis Hoerner <dhoerner@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:05 PM 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,

Dennis Hoerner 1374 E. 23rd Avenue Eugene, OR 97403 From: Tara Verbridge <taraverbridge@yahoo.ca> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:04 PM 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, Tara Verbridge 1345 Wescot

Windsor, MI 48004 From: Phyllis Oster <poster30@wcnet.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:04 PM 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, Phyllis Oster 1719 Juniper Dr. 1719 Juniper Dr. Bowling Green, OH 43402

From: Jean-Luc VIALARD <jeanlucvialard@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:03 PM 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, Jean-Luc VIALARD 15 Avenue Anatole de Monzie CAHORS, ot 46000 From: Darlene Jakusz <jdjakusz@wi-net.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:02 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, Darlene Jakusz 8380 Ambrose Lane Amherst Jct., WI 54407 From: MOUVEMENT CITOYEN LOTOIS POUR LA SORTIE DU NUCLEAIRE <mclsdn@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:01 PM 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, MOUVEMENT CITOYEN LOTOIS POUR LA SORTIE DU NUCLEAIRE 538 Chemin de Peyrolis CAHORS, ot 46000 From: kate yavenditti <kateyav@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:59 PM 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, kate yavenditti 2467 marilouise way san diego, CA 92103 From: Linda Leeuwrik <lleeuwrik@q.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:58 PM 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, Linda Leeuwrik 835 E Halliday St Pocatello, ID 83201 From: Linda Wilscam <lilprrngcat@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:50 PM 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, Linda Wilscam 161 East Main St Apt #12 Rockville, CT 06066 From: Beth Niederman <bethyandgarrett@xmission.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:45 PM 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, Beth Niederman 974 E 700 South 974 E 700 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102 From: Winthrop Southworth <southworthw@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:41 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Many thanks for focusing on the most crucial radioactive waste problem. 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; it 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. The desperate need is 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 totally inadequate 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 most imperative. The "discussion draft" needs to be re-examined and rewritten. Sincerely, Winthrop Southworth CPO 6105- Warren Wilson College PO Box 9000 Asheville, NC 28815 From: Janet Robinson <bocacatlover@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:40 PM 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, Janet Robinson 6391 Toulon Dr. Boca Raton, FL 33433 From: PatriciaM Miller <patsyjeeter@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:37 PM 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, PatriciaM Miller 1962 Hope ST. s San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 From: Ellen Thomas <et@prop1.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:34 PM 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, Ellen Thomas 354 Woodland Drive Tryon NC 28782 Tryon, NC 28782 From: Jane Davidson <romjulcat@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:29 PM 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, Jane Davidson 435 Valley View Road Englewood, NJ 07631 From: Margery Coffey <margerycoffey@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:25 PM 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, Margery Coffey P.O. Box 279 none Rosalie, NE 68055 From: Birgit Walch <birgitwalch@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:15 PM 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,

Birgit Walch 480 Stone Church Rd E Hamilton, ON L8W 0B1 From: Joanne Dixon <jvdix@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:03 PM 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, Joanne Dixon Colorado Springs, CO 80911

From: martha leahy <martha638@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:02 PM 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, martha leahy 39 lockeland rd 39 lockeland rd winchester, MA 01890 From: martha leahy <martha638@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:52 PM 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, martha leahy 39 lockeland rd 39 lockeland rd winchester, MA 01890 From: Lisa Hammermeister <necrohead56@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 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 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, Lisa Hammermeister 16456 Shamhart Dr. Granada Hills, CA 91344 From: Linda voith <whollycow@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:40 PM 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, Linda voith 7326 Gleason hill rd Belfast, NY 14711 From: Jon Anderholm <xunbio@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:30 PM 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, Jon Anderholm 1600 Niestrath Cazadero, CA 95421 From: Victoria Pitchford <goth_girl45@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:20 PM 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, Victoria Pitchford 670 W. Wayman Street Chicago, IL 60661 From: Robert Orlando <robhood00@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:14 PM 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, Robert Orlando 4705 State Highway 28 4705 State Highway 28 Cooperstown, NY 13326 From: Vic Burton <cvburton@swbell.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:11 PM 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, Vic Burton 5837 Grand Ave. Kansas City, MO 64113 From: jeff hopkins <jhop-90@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:11 PM 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, jeff hopkins 69 amber court Lindenhurst, IL 60046 From: Walt Kleine <Wkleine@netwiz.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:09 PM 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, Walt Kleine 3267 Hollis Oakland, CA 94608 From: Ray Legault <rdlegault@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:07 PM 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, Ray Legault 11825 se 221 st 11825 SE 221 ST kent, WA 98031 From: Debra Tate <dttomatoes@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:05 PM 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, Debra Tate PO Box 788 Gibsonton, FL 33534 From: Debra Tate <dttomatoes@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:05 PM 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,

Debra Tate PO Box 788 Gibsonton, FL 33534 From: Betty Scholten <bscholtendc@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:01 PM 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, Betty Scholten PO Box 645

Clatskanie, OR 97016 From: Shari Katz <shari.katz@att.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:59 PM 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, Shari Katz 729 Megan Court Westmont, IL 60559 From: Karen Sankey <ksankey@verizon.net>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:54 PM 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, Karen Sankey 12 Jamies Path Plymouth, MA 02360 From: Lynn Walker <mooncrone@mac.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:50 PM 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, Lynn Walker 15901 Corsica Ave Cleveland, OH 44110 From: Gene and Dori Peters <petersgd@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:43 PM 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. Please 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. Thank you, Peace! Gene and Dori Peters 10149 W. Loma Blanca Sun City, AZ 85351 From: karen stickney <kstick35@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:35 PM 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, karen stickney 27 baril street lewiston, ME 04240 From: Nathan Judy <nathanejudy@lavabit.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:34 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Nathan Judy 2 W. 70th St. Kansas City, MO 64113 From: susan michetti <stardust10000@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:27 PM 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, susan michetti 605 sheila st 605 sheila st. Mt Horeb WI 53572 mt horeb, WI 53572 From: Ronald and Joyce Mason <ronjoymason@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:19 PM 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, Ronald and Joyce Mason 30840 Running Stream #21 30840 Running Stream #21 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 From: Giancarlo Bruno <InstantKarma723@aim.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:12 PM 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, Giancarlo Bruno 10 Lettie Lane Wanaque, NJ Wanaque, NJ 07465 From: William Kinsella <wjkinsel@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:12 PM 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 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 cask containers at the same reactor site. Other movement must be only from that site to a permanent location for permanent isolation. Consolidated interim storage 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. Proceeding in this manner will ensure and endless round of costly legal challenges, wasting valuable time needed for developing a genuine solution. 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, William Kinsella 3020 Sylvania Drive #020 Sylvania Drive Raleigh, NC 27607 From: Joseph Mustion <jmustion@tampabay.rr.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:10 PM 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, Joseph Mustion 2906 Arrowsmith Rd xx Wimauma, FL 33598 From: Joseph Mustion <jmustion@tampabay.rr.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:10 PM 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, Joseph Mustion 2906 Arrowsmith Rd xx Wimauma, FL 33598 From: Lois Jordan <lmjor@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:09 PM 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, Lois Jordan 9161 E. Walnut Tree Dr. Tucson, AZ 85749 From: Phyllis Miller <jeanmiller.miller37@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:08 PM 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, Phyllis Miller 427 Marlborough St., Apartment 4 Apartment 4 Boston, MA 02115 From: Karen Peralta <karenperalta51@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:07 PM 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, Karen Peralta PO Box 82876 #8 Kenmore, WA 98028 From: M Andrus <mimiann.7782@verizon.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:04 PM 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, M Andrus 313 Midori Ln Calimesa, CA 92320 From: Allen Townsend <saltspray77@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:01 PM 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, Allen Townsend 143Walton Avenue San Antonio, TX 78225 From: Lynn Walker <mooncrone@mac.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:47 PM 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, Lynn Walker

15901 Corsica Ave Cleveland, OH 44110 From: Jerome Zornesky <janhankuszor@verizon.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:46 PM 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, Jerome Zornesky 460 Berkshire Road Ridgewood, NJ 07450

From: Thomas Eppes <tf16123@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:39 PM 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 future generations of citizens rather than the narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a 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 as Germany is doing. 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, Thomas Eppes 9401 E. Fowler Avenue 9401 E. Fowler Ave., Thonotosassa, FL Thonotosassa, FL 33592 From: Georgeann Calendine <calendine@yahoo.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:29 PM 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, Georgeann Calendine 342 West Temple Court SW 342 West Temple Court SW Vero Beach, FL 32968 From: rosemary rehm <naveeno@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:27 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 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, rosemary rehm 217 center street san rafael, CA 94901 From: Janet Maker <jamaker2001@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:25 PM 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, Janet Maker 925 Malcolm Ave 925 malcolm av Los Angeles, CA 90024 From: Molly Fleming <mcfleming@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:07 PM 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, Molly Fleming 425 Flynn Avenue 425 Flynn Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 From: Susan Willhoit <susan.willhoit@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:51 PM 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, Susan Willhoit 326 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff by the Sea,, CA 92007 From: jerry malamud <aabs@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:42 PM 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, jerry malamud 5562 Caminito Consuelo La Jolla, CA 92037 From: Tom Howell <tom.howell@mindspring.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:42 PM 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, Tom Howell 725-D Montague Road Columbia, SC 29209 From: Lauralee Humphrey <Llhumphrey205@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:41 PM 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, Lauralee Humphrey 205 Lynncrest Ct. Lutherville, MD 21093 From: Donald Warren RN <deadlinedon@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:36 PM 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, Donald Warren RN 5 east shore drive 5 East Shore Drive, Asheville,NC Asheville, NC 28805 From: Abdessalam Diab <friendiab@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:34 PM 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, Abdessalam Diab 6 Algazaer St. Almohandseen Giza, ot 12411 From: Gene and Dori Peters <petersgene@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:29 PM 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.

Please 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. Thank you. Peace! Gene and Dori Peters 204 W. Havens, # 150 Mitchell, SD 57301 From: Marcia Hoodwin <marcia@accentsaway.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:23 PM 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, Marcia Hoodwin 8236 Shadow Pine Way Don't send a receipt; thanks! Sarasota, FL 34238 From: Nick Mantas <nickmantas@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:19 PM 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, Nick Mantas 372 Wilson Avenue Township of Washington, NJ 07676 From: Hugh Moore <hmpeace1@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:12 PM 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, Hugh Moore 166 N 1st Street Unit 4 Unit 4 El Cajon, CA 92021 From: Jim Bell <jimbellelsi@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:12 PM 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,

Jim Bell 4862 Voltaire St. 4862 Voltaire St. San Diego, CA 92107 From: Donna Boyle <dboyle101@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:58 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Radioactive waste is a high priority problem. But the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems. No. It is time, it is past time, to resolve the issue and stop adding to the wallpaper pasted over it. Moving toxic stuff to temporary graveyards is an illusion, not a fix. The companies that generate the waste are responsible for its custody and care, as is true in any other industry. Why should our fragile environment or the taxpayers be expected to absorb the waste or to clean up after them? Every generator must keep its waste safely onsite AND develop a permanent solution its enclosure in a solid shield that can withstand any challenge until the radioactivity is extinguished, possibly thousands or millions of years. Probably they would prefer to develop alternate sources of energy. So much the better. If the site runs out of space, they must cease and desist from creating more waste; i.e., they must shut down their reactors. Your discussion draft must include that final solution. This is not a volleyball game, and we cant continue to keep the ball up in the air, in play forever, or even for a short while longer. Sincerely, Donna Boyle San Diego, CA dboyle101@cox.net Donna Boyle San Diego, CA 92104 From: wendy weikel <ww4nature@yahoo.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:48 PM 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, wendy weikel 1015 sierra st. 1015 Sierra St. berkeley, CA 94707 From: Jim Lieberman <jl@lieblet.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:45 PM

To:

feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:definition of HLW Attachments: 11462.pdf

Based on my experience at the NRC and consulting work at DOE, I believe it is in the nation's interest to treat waste incidental to reprocessing as different then high-level waste. The definition of HLW used at Idaho and Savannah River sites authorized by Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act results in a cost effective way to safely dispose of this material that would otherwise be considered HLW. I recommend that HLW be defined to exclude waste incidental to reprocessing (WIR). It is important to have this clearly stated in any HLW legislation. I have attached a paper that provides more information about the history of the definition of HLW and WIR. --

Best Regards Jim Lieberman Regulatory and Nuclear Consultant Cell: 301-526-4790 e-mail: jl@lieblet.com The information contained in this message from Jim Lieberman and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the named recipient(s). If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, distributing or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return email and delete the original message. From: Deb Brown <deb@oltexts.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:43 PM 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, Deb Brown PO Box 98964 Raleigh, NC 27614 From: Suzanne Tompkins <suzihugatree@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:30 PM 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, Suzanne Tompkins Via de Angeles San Clemente, CA 92672 From: Steve Branch <shb4123@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:29 PM 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, Steve Branch 88 Edgehill Providence, RI 02906 From: R. Marti <rjmarti@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:13 PM 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, R. Marti 1800 Midick Altadena, CA 91001 From: J.A. Dingman <jdingman11@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:00 PM 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, J.A. Dingman P.O. Box 10796 2602 Gracewood Dr. Greensboro, NC 27408 From: Victoria De Goff and family <vjdrs@pacbell.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:57 PM 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, Victoria De Goff and family 1916 Los Angeles Berkeley, CA 94707 From: Richard Sherman and family <vjdrsg@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:56 PM 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, Richard Sherman and family 1916 Los Angeles BErkeley, CA 94707 From: Nicole Maschke <nicolemaschke@att.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:47 PM 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, Nicole Maschke 4802 Gedeon Avenue Cleveland, OH 44102 From: Barbara Binns <dbbinns@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:47 PM 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, Barbara Binns

764 S. Sierra Ave. Solana Beach, CA 92075 From: Marcus M. McCallen III <mccallen@mcn.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:43 PM 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, Marcus M. McCallen III 10401 Nichols Lane Mendocino, CA 95460

From: joy cash <hilobliss@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:39 PM 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, joy cash 3657 Vermont St San Diego, CA 92103 From: Michael Zmolek <mike.zmolek@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:34 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, Michael Zmolek 707 S 20 Ave W 707 S 20 Ave W, Newton, IA 50208 Newton, IA 52240 From: Joseph Duerksen <josephduerksen@att.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:32 PM 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, Joseph Duerksen 4407 W 54th Ter. 4407 W 54h Ter, Roeland Park, KS 66205 Roeland Park, KS 66205 From: Louis Cox <louis@peaceforearth.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:32 PM 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, Louis Cox 360 Toad Rd. Charlotte, VT 05445 From: Patricia Cabarga <pphelan@nc.rr.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:30 PM 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, Patricia Cabarga Chapel Hill, NC 27514 From: Margarita Haugaard <margarita-h@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:29 PM 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, Margarita Haugaard 36060 indiana street san diego, CA 92103 From: Arnie Schoenberg <arnieds@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:23 PM 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, Arnie Schoenberg 3345 Gregory St. San Diego, CA 92104 From: Emma Spurgin Hussey <spurginhussey@wildmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:22 PM 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, Emma Spurgin Hussey Fitzgerald Road Burdett, NY 14818 From: Dorothy Lynn Brooks <amberitha@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:18 PM 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, Dorothy Lynn Brooks 720 Briiatwood Blvd. Arlington, TX 76013 From: Ben Oscar Andersson <oscarsito1057@wildmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:17 PM 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, Ben Oscar Andersson 55 My Street My Hometown, IL 60601 From: Nanci Oechsle <dishesbite@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:49 AM 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, Nanci Oechsle 2438 Alta Vista Dr Vista, CA 92084 From: Van Aggson <van.a@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:46 AM 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, Van Aggson

9025 LEMON AVE LA MESA, CA 91941 From: Rosalind Zitner <rozzitner@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:40 AM 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, Rosalind Zitner 83 Pine Hill Rd Great Neck, NY 11020

From: Vi Mooberry <vmooberry@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:35 AM 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, Vi Mooberry 1170 Rising Hill Escondido, CA 92029 From: Elizabeth Hunter <mehunter7@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:33 AM

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, Elizabeth Hunter 1125 W. Willetta St. 1125 W. Willetta St. Phoenix, AZ 85007 From: Leon Trumpp <aquatek@iland.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:32 AM 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, Leon Trumpp 1703 W. 9th 1703 W 9th Sedalia, MO 65301 From: Marcia Patt <marciapatt@cox.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:29 AM 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, Marcia Patt 3511 Park Blvd. #3 San Diego, CA 92103 From: rick bissonnette <rcebissy@roadrunner.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:16 AM 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, rick bissonnette 849 lindley ave 849 lindley ave. cuyahoga falls, OH 44223 From: William Le Bon <b_lebon@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:12 AM 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, William Le Bon po box 7657 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 From: Steve Branch <shb4123@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:03 AM 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, Steve Branch 88 Edgehill Providence, RI 02906 From: Cori Bishop <animeluvr666@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:01 AM 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, Cori Bishop PO Box 1154 Brigantine, NJ 08203 From: Casey Heisler <caseyfheisler@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 11:00 AM 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, Casey Heisler 7135 W Villa Chula Glendale, AZ 85310 From: Patrick Brown <weast@shaw.ca> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:53 AM 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, Patrick Brown Nelson, BC V1L6R2 From: Frances Whitman <fwhitman@greynun.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:49 AM 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, Frances Whitman 1750 Quarry Road Yardley PA 19067 Yardley, PA 19067 From: Lisa Neste <lilmouse1213@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:29 AM 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, Lisa Neste 4437 Garden Club St. 4437 Garden Club St. High Point, NC 27265 From: Melissa Atkinson <melissa@ballroomdancers.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:25 AM 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 exacerabate 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,

Melissa Atkinson 10647 Ashby Ave Los Angeles, CA 90064 From: Michael Distefano <firecat@iname.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:16 AM 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, Michael Distefano 11809 Pittson Road

silver spring, MD 20906 From: Michael Distefano <firecat@iname.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:15 AM 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, Michael Distefano 11809 Pittson Road silver spring, MD 20906 From: Laura Saxon <lrsaxon9@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:10 AM 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, Laura Saxon 145TH ave rd Morriston, FL 32668 From: Christina Moodie <moodswt@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:10 AM 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, Christina Moodie 721 W. Las Lomitas Rd. Tucson, AZ 85704 From: Dana Bleckinger <dbleckinger@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:01 AM 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, Dana Bleckinger 3153 SW Dolph Ct. #13 Yachats, OR 97498 From: Anne Padilla <groesa@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:51 AM 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, Anne Padilla 2100 Calle de la Vuelta Santa Fe, NM 87505 From: Walker Everette <hairdryerdog@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:37 AM 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, Walker Everette Nyack, NY 10960 From: Hydee Dullam <Hdullam@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:36 AM 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, Hydee Dullam 155 Ramona Pl. Camarillo, CA 93010 From: Hugo Loquet <Dhaulagiri@skynet.be> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:35 AM 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, Hugo Loquet Louis Van Regenmortellei 29 Borsbeel, ot 2150 From: Mike Mari <mikeym_m@vegemail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:24 AM 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, Mike Mari 838 Van Buren St Herndon, VA 20170 From: Debbie Williamson <williamsondebbie2@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:21 AM 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, Debbie Williamson P.O. Box 21 Mountain Home, AR 72654 From: Michael Kirkby <kirkbymichael@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:13 AM 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, Michael Kirkby 9 Albany Ave. 9 Albany Ave. Toronto, ON M5R 3C2 From: Leslie Limberg <lllimberg@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:08 AM 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,

Leslie Limberg 102 red fern lane 102 Red Fern Lane w, MO 63385 From: Joan Hennessey <words@jeannesavage.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 9:06 AM 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, Joan Hennessey

106 great western rd South Dennis, MA 02660 From: Julie Alley <juliesbooks@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:57 AM 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, Julie Alley 3553 Atlantic Avenue Suite 353

Long Beach, CA 90807 From: Susan Broadhead <s_broadhead@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:54 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable I am writing to thank you for addressing the radioactive waste problem. At the same time, I would like to express my concern over the interim site proposal in the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation. I believe that this proposal, if enacted, 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, Susan Broadhead 328 Martins Creek Road Barnardsville, NC 28709 From: Daniel Doran, Ph.D. <be_well@emailplus.org>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:34 AM 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, Daniel Doran, Ph.D. 600 W. 3 1/2 Mile Cultivating Wholeness Center Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 From: David Lees <grobone@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:15 AM

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, David Lees 41 Topsfield Rd. Ipswich, MA 01938 From: Ann Reed <cam8002@care2.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 8:00 AM 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, Ann Reed 1622 N 2ND ST QUINCY, IL 62301 From: pat korzendorfer <jerpatkorzen@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:44 AM 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, pat korzendorfer p o box 247 20 north court fort atkinson, IA 52144 From: Gloria Picchetti <picchetti707@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:30 AM 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, Gloria Picchetti 553 W Oakdale apt 312 Chicago, IL 60657 From: danielle gaynor <danielle_gaynor@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:23 AM 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. The fact that an acceptable, safe solution to this problem has not yet been found is proof that insufficient thought was given to the matter of approving nuclear power plants to begin with. If we add the financial costs and safety risks to the overall picture, we see what an enormous mistake it has been to go down a nuclear path to meet out energy needs. So, unless you are willing to store these materials in your own home - putting your own self, family and community at risk, please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, danielle gaynor 2546 Pleasant St oakland, CA 94602 From: Richard Heinlein <muhwase@wildmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:20 AM 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, Richard Heinlein PO Box 152 PO Box 152 Trevor, WI 53179 From: Patrick Dreier <patrick.dreier@gmx.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:07 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, renewables 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, Patrick Dreier Industrie 10 Industrie 10, ot 2114 From: Cecily Westermann <cwestermann@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:30 AM 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, Cecily Westermann Saint Louis, MO 63139 From: Kathryn Peterson <kitkatmcla@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:16 AM 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, Kathryn Peterson 3146 SE 54th Ave Portland, OR 97206 From: Jerry and Lois Wharton/Putzier <jwhar76024@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:11 AM 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, Jerry and Lois Wharton/Putzier 5033 E. 23rd St. na Tucson, AZ 85711 From: Roger Santerre <rpswindspirit@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:06 AM 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, Roger Santerre 10 Canaan Rd. New Paltz, NY 12561 From: Ana Alvarez <aairis@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:05 AM 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, Ana Alvarez 11500 Brandiwine Ct. Clermont, FL 34711 From: Anna Undebeck <anna17@hotmail.se> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:47 AM 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, Anna Undebeck vsterlnggatan 20 Kristinehamnristinehamn, NV 68130 From: Birgitta Siponen <hipuldi@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:31 AM 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, Birgitta Siponen

Puulinnankatu 4 Oulu, ot 90570 From: Nancy Holland <ommthree@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:00 AM 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, Nancy Holland 19 Mechanic Street Shelburne falls, MA 01370

From: Rob Jursa <info@blakksphere.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:40 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Rob Jursa Liesingtalstrasse 117 Liesingtalstrasse 117 Breitenfurt, ot 2384 From: Jonathan Bailin <jonathan4web@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:30 AM 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, Jonathan Bailin 1111 No Street Los Angeles, CA 90066 From: Krista Parker <parker.krista@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:59 AM 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, Krista Parker 225 Wellesley St. E. Toronto, AB T5P 1M8 From: Adam Fisher <master.damsk@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:58 AM 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, Adam Fisher Emsworth, ot PO10 8EF From: Renee and Robert Pound <parodux@astound.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:56 AM 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, Renee and Robert Pound 1400 Abbey Ct. Concord, CA 94518 From: Ridwaana Allen <Rallen7@scmail.spelman.edu> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:52 AM 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, Ridwaana Allen 1249 England terrace Hampton, GA 30228 From: CP Wren <wrenstir@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:49 AM 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, CP Wren Allston Way Berkeley, CA 94712 From: Mariangela Monterisi <marmonter@libero.it> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:48 AM 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, Mariangela Monterisi Bisceglie, ot 70052 From: k olson <servimailster@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:33 AM 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, k olson 21325 Heron Dr 21325 Heron Dr. bodega bay, CA 94923 From: Marshall Arnold <marshall.arnold@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:22 AM 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, Marshall Arnold 1359 N Maplewood Chicago, IL 60622 From: Helen Porter <ZeeKallah@Yahoo.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:07 AM 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, Helen Porter 5001 N. 11th Ave. E201 Phoenix, AZ 85013 From: Sheila Garrett <slgsheila@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:53 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft Thank you for working on the radioactive waste problem. The high-level radioactive waste program is broken and the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation only continues the problems. Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to an interim site would not fix anything. Protection of public health, safety and security requires moving deadly radioactive waste as little as possible. The waste should only be moved to dry containers at the same reactor site then to a permanent location for permanent isolation. A consolidated interim storage site would increase the risks of accidents and security problems and guarantee increased exposure to ionizing radiation along public-use highways, rails and waterways--even without an accident. The de-linking of an interim site from progress on a permanent solution only delays permanent isolation of the waste from the environment and makes it more likely that a temporary, unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent nuclear waste dump. This proposed legislation would virtually ensure that. I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future, not on the interests of the nuclear power industry-- the only beneficiary this program. The best way to limit the radioactive waste problem is to phase out the use of nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. For the waste that exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative. Sincerely, Sheila Garrett PO Box 305 Ashfield, MA 01330

From: Rodney and Terri Jones <rjnhugo@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:31 AM 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, Rodney and Terri Jones 3255 E 2120 Rd n/a Hugo, OK 74743 From: Peter Saltanis <Pjsalt@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:09 AM 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, Peter Saltanis 326 Moose Hill Rd. Monroe, CT 06468 From: Arthur Riding <sanayhah@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:02 AM 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, Arthur Riding Elsfield, Crafts End, Chilton Didcot, ot OX110SA From: Donna Napier <donnanapier@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:48 AM 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, Donna Napier 2256 Corinthian Ct Eugene, OR 97405 From: Darrell Clarke <darrell@dclarke.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:46 AM 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, Darrell Clarke Castaic, CA 91384 From: Susie Jason <susieq@mcn.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:39 AM 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, Susie Jason p.o. box 608 Ft. Bragg, CA 95437 From: Chris Jenkins <jeep7.cj@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:39 AM 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, Chris Jenkins 3305 Bader Ave. Cleveland, OH 44109 From: Richard Arrindell <rarrundell@netscape.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:30 AM 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, Richard Arrindell 1563 Grandview Way Melbourne, FL 32935 From: Mollie Thomas <grouseridgetower@gmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:20 AM 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, Mollie Thomas 1506 Bethel St. NE Olympia, WA 98532 From: Pat and Gary Gover <govers@bellsouth.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:18 AM 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, Pat and Gary Gover 300 Lincoln St. Fairhope, AL 36532 From: Lorna Farnum <lorna.skip@gte.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:09 AM 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, Lorna Farnum 3305 Druid Ln. 3305 Druid Ln. Rossmoor, CA 90720 From: Judy Brouillette <jfbtyndrum@knology.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:04 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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,

Judy Brouillette 2815 17th Avenue Columbus, GA 31901 From: Susan Selbin <sselbin@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:01 AM 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, Susan Selbin 2431 Northwest Cir NW

Albuquerque, NM 87104 From: Nancy Chismar <nanlc999@optonline.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:54 AM 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, Nancy Chismar 6 York Dr Apt 6A Edison, NJ 08817 From: Sybil Kohl <sybkohl@msn.com>

Sent: To:

Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:49 AM 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, Sybil Kohl 18103 NE 159th Ave 18103 N.E. 159th Ave. Brush Prairie, WA 98606 From: Cynthia Groves, Groves, RetiredHealth Care Practice Mgmt. Consult <be@taotoearthpmpubs.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:43 AM

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, Cynthia Groves, Groves, RetiredHealth Care Practice Mgmt. Consult 105 Kulipuu St. 105 Kulipuu St. Kihei, HI 96753 From: Don Heyse <don@heyse.org> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:29 AM 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, Don Heyse 1842 Corriedale Dr Fort Collins, CO 80526 From: Stephanie Trasoff <strasoff@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:27 AM 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, Stephanie Trasoff 5160 Seaview Dr Blaine, WA 98230 From: Crystal Conklin <eidhlyn@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:05 AM 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, Crystal Conklin 5902 W Royal Palm #82 Glendale, AZ 85302 From: Jennifer Hayes <xandysmom@aol.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:00 AM 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, Jennifer Hayes 2312 St. James Pl. Modesto, CA 95350 From: H James <relating2u@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:58 PM 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. "Interim" storage does not benefit the public; rather it is a long-time nuclear industry goal. The utilities are liable for radioactive waste when it's on their property; when it's moved outside their gates, we taxpayers are liable. That's the real reason the industry wants this non-solution to the waste problem. Current on-site storage of radioactive waste is inadequate. Fuel pools are overly full, are generally outside containment, and need offsite electric power to maintain cooling. Waste should be removed from pools at the earliest time possible and put into secure dry casks sited and hardened to prevent attack or destruction by natural disaster. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, H James 4042 N Harding Chicago, IL 60618 From: Gail Linnerson <GLinnerkin@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:43 PM 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, Gail Linnerson 719 9th Ave SE 719 9th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 From: M Ddayton <teachers12@q.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:39 PM 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, M Ddayton OV, AZ 85737 From: Judith Abel <mohawkwoman2@ymail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:31 PM 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, Judith Abel 4183 Wellman Road McLouth, KS 66054 From: Russell Lowes <russlowes@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:31 PM 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, Russell Lowes 3339 E. Seneca St. Tucson, AZ 85716 From: Nancy Bengtson <ninais@npgcable.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:25 PM 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, Nancy Bengtson 165 Verde Valley School Road Sedona AZ, AZ 86351 From: Gerda Seaman <gerda@segall.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:11 PM 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, Gerda Seaman 1020 Macy Avenue Chico, CA 95926 From: william albin <wla941@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:11 PM 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, william albin 965 amber loop grass valley, CA 95945 From: James Ploger <jploger@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:03 PM 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, James Ploger 1909 S Charles St 1909 S Charles St Seattle, WA 98144 From: Anatta Blackmarr <anatta@sandoth.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:59 PM 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,

Anatta Blackmarr 14207 SE Fairoaks Ave. Portland, OR 97267 From: Kathy Levine <klevine5@optonline.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:57 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable I agree with the contents of this letter. I'm very concerned about radioactive waste and moving it around just makes things worse! 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, Kathy Levine

1408 Ditmas Ave. 1408 Ditmas Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11226 From: Nathan Vogel <doctorspook@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:52 PM 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, Nathan Vogel 49 alpine terrace

San Francisco, CA 94117 From: Jane Affonso <jgaffonso@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:44 PM 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, Jane Affonso 1919 Belmont Lane 1919 Belmont Lane Redondo Beach, CA 90278

From: john ventre <jv3free@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:43 PM 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, john ventre 700 shumont rd bl. mt., NC 28711 From: Janet Marsh <meditate@bigpond.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:40 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, Janet Marsh Dunskey Place Dunskey Place Denmark, ot 6333 From: Carla Haim <norma.haim@verizon.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:38 PM 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, Carla Haim 2706 Irvington Ave. San Bernardino, CA 92407 From: joseph hunt <josephmhunt@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:34 PM 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, joseph hunt 59 edwin street dorchester, MA 02124 From: Jennifer Griffith <jbgrif@mindspring.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:26 PM 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, Jennifer Griffith 315 Obie Dr. Durham, NC 27713 From: David Frey <Freyguy13@comcast.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:21 PM 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, David Frey 9751 Longfield dr. Huntley, IL 60142 From: June Adler <juneadler@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:14 PM 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, June Adler 509 N. 7th St. 509 N. 7th St. Alpine, TX 79830 From: Dr. William J. Sneck, S.J., Ph.D. <Bsneck@jesuitcenter.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:12 PM 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, Dr. William J. Sneck, S.J., Ph.D. 501 N. Church Rd. Wernersville,, PA 19565 From: Louise Scott <LouisescottCA@Gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:06 PM 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, Louise Scott 2880 Edison Graton, CA 95444 From: Barbara Tombleson <bjt@coho.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:04 PM 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, Barbara Tombleson 7526 SW Capitol Hill Rd. 7526 SW Capitol Hill Rd. Portland, OR 97219 From: Susaan Aram <mermaidlaguna@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:58 PM 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, Susaan Aram 1361 Terrace Way Laguna Beach, CA 92651 From: Joel Hildebrandt <senorjoel@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:55 PM 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, Joel Hildebrandt 3044a Halcyon Ct Berkeley, CA 94705 From: Amerval Du Planty <amerval@dccnet.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:52 PM 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 waste to indefinite storage is not the appropriate solution to this problem! The first step is to halt the PRODUCTION of all waste. Immediately FULL RESOURCES are to be brought to bear on research to discover a method for NEUTRALIZING the radioactive waste and rendering it benign in the environment. Secondly: FULL RESOURCES are to be applied to researching appropriate ENERGY ALTERNATIVES. The Keshe Foundation (www.keshefoundation.org) has just as recently as January 2013 advised the World that it is making FREELY available the technology plans for a Free Energy System it has developed. FREE because of the importance of no one Country wielding such a power over the World. The United States of America has assuredly ALREADY been in receipt of this information. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start addressing the appropriate issues of a) Neutralizing Radioactive Waste. b) Halting the Production of any additional Radioactive Waste. c) Begin earnest examination of alternative Energy production such as that offered by the Keshe Foundation. Sincerely, Amerval Du Planty Amerval Du Planty 1104 Crowe Road Roberts Creek, BC V0N 2W3 From: Lawrence Carroll <Lcarrollb@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:51 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, Lawrence Carroll 66 Carroll Road 66 Carroll Road Hurtsboro, AL 36860 From: Melinda Burgess <melindajf77@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:48 PM 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, Melinda Burgess 10156 Wisner Ave Mission Hills, CA 91345 From: Jenny Thacker <jennythacker304@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:43 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radio active waste - your discussion draft is unacceptable I'm glad you're trying to work on the radioactive waste problem. It's a horrible situation and it needs to be a high priority.

Unfortunately 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. Radio active waste should only be moved 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. 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. Please destroy your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, Jenny Thacker 223 Mason Dr Harpers Ferry, WV 25425 From: Dimitri Stoupis <stoupis@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:37 PM 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, Dimitri Stoupis 12830 6th Str., Yucaipa Yucaipa, CA 92399 From: cora cypser <bcypser@bestweb.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:37 PM 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, cora cypser 16 Young Road Katonah, NY 10536 From: Dante Renzoni <silentglide@tds.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:35 PM 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, Dante Renzoni W6821 Wester Ave w6821 Wester AVe Medford, WI 54451 From: Danielle Montague-Judd <ddmjudd@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:27 PM 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, Danielle Montague-Judd 1820 Fox Run Rd. Wanship, UT 84017 From: Steve Shuput <sshuput@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17 PM 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, Steve Shuput 690 N Caring Cove 690 N Caring Cove Salt Lake City, UT 84103 From: Joanne Sauter <chitowntall@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:14 PM 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, Joanne Sauter 50 E 16th St Chicago, IL 60626 From: Barbara Haack <barhaack@verizon.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:55 PM 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,

Barbara Haack 102 Main St 102 Main West Newbury, MA 01985 From: William Seyfried <mseyfriedjr@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:51 PM 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, William Seyfried

701 California Ave Boulder City, NV 89005 From: Laurie Solomon <star_fire145@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:39 PM 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 this 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, Laurie Solomon POB 1342 Battle Ground, WA 98604

From: Jelica Roland <jroland@email.t-com.hr> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:37 PM 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, Jelica Roland Sv. Martin 64 Buzet, ot 52420 From: Michael Strawn <mjs55@juno.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:31 PM

To:

feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Let's discuss the discussion draft First, thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. The nation's high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation completely fails to address the problems constructively. Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at all, and is actually a really dumb idea. Who came up with it, a nuclear industry lobbyist? No one charged with protecting public health, safety, or security should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. "Consolidated interim storage" (sometimes just called "storage" by nuclear backers) doesn't actually accomplish anything, as it would not reduce the number of sites now storing radioactive waste. Every reactor will remain a de facto waste dump that needs to be guarded, because spent fuel removed from reactors is too hot to be sent anywhere; it must be stored in pools for about five years. So consolidated interim storage would simply increase the number of sites by the number of "interim" sites. "Interim" storage sites are by definition not suitable for permanent storage. Yet there is a very real risk that they would become permanent sites, as no state wants a permanent storage site within its borders. Once "interim" sites are established, it would be all too easy to simply continue them year after year, decade after decade, rather than come up with the permanent solution we need to the radioactive waste problem. And if a permanent site is found, then the waste would need to be moved again -- a completely unnecessary risk. We know that accidents happen, and they are far more likely to occur when the waste is moving than when it is stationary. Speaking of transporting waste, a single average truck-sized waste cask would carry the radiological equivalent of 40 Hiroshima bombs; a rail cask would hold 200 Hiroshima bombs worth of radiation. And tens of thousands of these casks would travel our nation's roads, railways and waterways over the next 30 years through major cities and across America's agricultural heartland -- just waiting for accidents to happen. Does this sound like a good idea to you? "Interim" storage does not benefit the public in any way whatsoever. So why do it? Because it's a longtime nuclear industry goal. The utilities are liable for radioactive waste when it's on their property; when it's moved outside their gates, the taxpayers become liable. That's the real reason the industry wants this non-solution to the waste problem -- so that someone else gets to accept the liability. Please show some backbone by standing up to these lobbyists and do something for Americans: Say No to "consolidated interim storage."

I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection, and equity for the future rather than on the narrow interests of the nuclear power industry, which would be the only beneficiary of such an illconsidered program. If you want to implement something that would benefit Americans who are not invested in or employed by the nuclear industry, Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) together with renewed work on finding a permanent solution is immensely preferable to what you have come up with. What's HOSS? Well, current on-site storage of radioactive waste is inadequate: Fuel pools are overly full, are generally outside containment, and need offsite electric power to maintain cooling. To address these issues, waste should be removed from pools at the earliest time possible and put into secure dry casks sited and hardened to prevent attack or destruction by natural disaster. That's what HOSS is -- Hardened On-Site Storage. 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 (HOSS). Other movement should 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. For these reasons, I urge you to scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Please -- for the safety and finances of Americans. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Strawn 29631 Palomino Dr. Warren, MI 48093 From: Laura Simpson <laura.simpson24@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:28 PM 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, Laura Simpson Laura Simpson P.O. Box 2926 Box 2926 McKinleyville, Ca. 95519 McKinleyville, CA 95519 From: Timothy Enloe <tenloe@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:23 PM 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, Timothy Enloe Weller Court weller ct. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 From: Mike Thomas <newsguy@rof.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:23 PM 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, Mike Thomas 307 Elm Avenue Rifle, CO 81650 From: David Johnson <dave.dlj@frontier.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:22 PM 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, David Johnson 146 S 4th St Buckley, WA 98321 From: Sibylle Schwarz <ssn@rupertsland.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:21 PM 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, Sibylle Schwarz P.O.Box: 6099 Eagle River, AK 99577 From: Karen Jacobsen <kjacobsen2001@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:19 PM 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, Karen Jacobsen 3414 Rte. 150 Box 259 East Schodack, NY 12063 From: Ella Melik <ella.melik@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:18 PM 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, Ella Melik 11412 N King Arthur Drive Spokane, WA 99218 From: Matthew Filler <matt@mattfiller.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:17 PM 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, Matthew Filler 233 Harvard Ln Seal Beach, CA 90740 From: Pamela Allee <alleepa@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:15 PM 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,

Pamela Allee 7425 N Portsmouth Ave Portland, OR 97203 From: Carole Mathews <carole.mathews1@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:09 PM 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, Carole Mathews 220 Highlands Ridge Pl SE

Smyrna, GA 30082 From: Irena Franchi <bluabirdo@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:05 PM 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, Irena Franchi 301 174 St 2206 Sunny Isle Beac, FL 33160 From: Darlene Barber Waldron <ojibwe@copper.net>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 8:05 PM 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, Darlene Barber Waldron P.O. Box 475 Dannemora, NY 12929 From: David Garratt <dfgarratt@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:02 PM 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, David Garratt Buffalo, NY 14222 From: Mike Konopa <mkonopa@juno.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:01 PM 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, Mike Konopa 60 Mann St Irvine, CA 92612 From: Nancy Stone Dickinson <rdndjnsd@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:53 PM 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, Nancy Stone Dickinson 5173 N. Kenwood Avenue 5173 N. Kenwood Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46208 From: Diane Steele <amazonwoman@frontiernet.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:45 PM 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, Diane Steele 613 Linden St. Farmington Farmington, MN 55024 From: Victoria Loudis <vrl243@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:39 PM 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, Victoria Loudis 248-15 Rushmore Ave. Douglaston, NY 11363 From: Stephen and Robin Newberg <crashnewberg@netscape.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:32 PM 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, Stephen and Robin Newberg 146 Granville Rd North Granby, CT 06060 From: ray trozzo <rtrozzo102@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:30 PM 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, ray trozzo 3853 kittyhawk dr 3853 kittyhawk dr fort myers, FL 33905 From: Linda Musmeci Kimball <Lmkocpj@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:30 PM 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, Linda Musmeci Kimball 724 Melinda Dr. 724 Melinda Dr., Oxford, OH 45056 Oxford, OH 45056 From: Dan Henneberger <enterdansworld@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:25 PM 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, Dan Henneberger 12500 Culver blvd #119 12500 Culver blvd #119 Los Angeles, CA 90066 From: Leslie Burpo <lburpo@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:25 PM 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, Leslie Burpo P.O. Box 5468 Eugene, OR 97405 From: Lee Greenawalt <Leegshack@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:07 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. The nation's high-level radioactive waste program is ineffective, but the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only exacerbate the problems. 25,000,000 year radiation is not interim. Nuclear waste must not be moved around like peas under shells. Every movement is a problem. A permanent secure site is the only movement that should be made from the reactor of origin. 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. 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 more objectionable is 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. We must stop creating this problem. For the waste that exists now, Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative. Sincerely, Lee Greenawalt 3141 N. Parsons Ave Merced, CA 95340 From: Rosemary Doyle <rdoyle@cheerful.com>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 7:04 PM 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, Rosemary Doyle Pembroke Livonia, MI 48152 From: Joyce H. Browning <jbrowning@npgcable.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:00 PM 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, Joyce H. Browning 5 West Cottage Ave Flagstaff, AZ 86001 From: Robert Linzmeier <musicman690@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:59 PM 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, Robert Linzmeier 950 E Wilmette Rd Palatine, IL 60074 From: Timothy Cardiello <timcardiellO@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:49 PM 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, Timothy Cardiello 23 Boston Ave Medford, MA 02155 From: Edward Mainland <emainland@comcast.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:45 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable In my opinion, the mounting radioactive waste problem should get top priority in Congress. America's high-level radioactive waste program is broken. The Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only make a bad situation worse. Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at all but would shift the burden from industry to taxpayers. This is not acceptable. It is the height of irresponsibility for politicians to advocate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. Only the short

move from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry containers at the same reactor site is safe. 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. You must put public health, environmental protection and equity first rather than kowtow to the narrow interests of the nuclear power industry--which would be the only beneficiary of such a thoughtless program. Even better, to deal with the radioactive waste problem realistically is to phase out nuclear power entirely and replace it with clean, renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and conservation. We are stuck with the waste that already exists, and you ought to be working on Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed emphasis on finding a permanent solution is imperative. Please junk this "discussion draft" and begin againr. Sincerely, Edward Mainland 1017 Bel Marin Keys Blvd. 1017 Bel Marin Keys Blvd. Novato, CA 94949 From: Erica Grimm <forevergrimm@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:42 PM 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, Erica Grimm 3242 Hollydale Drive Los Angeles, CA 90039 From: Kathy and Jim Penfold <jkpenfold@embarqmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:35 PM 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, Kathy and Jim Penfold Jefferson City, MO 65109 From: Patricia Jerrells <trisha7of9@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:31 PM 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, Patricia Jerrells 320 SE NIghthawk Place Shelton, WA 98584 From: Donn Simpson <pricklymountain@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:23 PM 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, Donn Simpson 493 Prickly MT.RD. Main St. Warren, VT 05674 From: Gary Jones <g.jones1965@att.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:20 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Instead of allowing Big Nuke to dump their waste costs on someone else and spread it around, please leave the trans-uranic material on site where it's already being guarded. It may end up as future fuel for a new generation of reactor, assuming the new technology is safe and viable, and that's a pretty big assumption. I certainly don't want this stuff being trucked passed my back yard. Joliet is too big to evacuate, and it would probably be too late for that if there were an accident or terrorists sabotaged the nearby railroad. 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, Gary Jones 608 W. Marion St. Joliet, IL 60436 From: Byron Byers <ted@tedbyers.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:17 PM 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, Byron Byers 6109 So C St 6109 So C St Tacoma, WA 98408 From: Byron Byers <ted@tedbyers.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:17 PM 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, Byron Byers 6109 So C St 6109 So C St Tacoma, WA 98408 From: Jadwiga Reinke <jadwigareinke@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:13 PM 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, Jadwiga Reinke 846 Yuba St. Redding, CA 96001 From: SUE E. DEAN <DEANKS@JUNO.COM> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:12 PM 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, SUE E. DEAN 33945 N. 66TH WAY 33945 N. 66th Way SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85266 From: SUE E. DEAN <DEANKS@JUNO.COM> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:12 PM 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, SUE E. DEAN 33945 N. 66TH WAY 33945 N. 66th Way SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85266 From: Lindsay Black <lindzb@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:12 PM 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,

Lindsay Black P.O. Box 1206 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 From: Dennis Nelson <dennis_nelson@att.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:02 PM 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. You need to accept once and for all that nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. A disaster such as the "permanent" radioactive contamination near the Fukushima plant should have made that fact abundantly clear to any thinking person by now. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely,

Dennis Nelson, Ph.D. Dennis Nelson 10952 Decatur Road 10952 Decatur Road, San Diego San Diego, CA 92126 From: Anita Wessling <w2fruit@ozarkmountains.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:02 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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,

Anita Wessling 13886 Hwy 396 Omaha, AR 72662 From: Roberta Peters <bobbi10267@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:58 PM 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, Roberta Peters 172 Centre Street

Mountain View, CA 94041 From: Lionel Ortiz <brownbuffalo@suddenlink.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:57 PM 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, Lionel Ortiz 2820 Graham Rd none Bayside, CA 95524

From: Rachael Denny <stormdragon71@netscape.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:57 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable I am writing, in part, to thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem, which should be a very high 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 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. With all this in mind, 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. In summary, I would respectfully urge you to go back to the drawing board and start over. Thank y0ou. Sincerely, Rachael Denny 4082 Interlake Road Bradley, CA 93426 From: Beth Angel <angel_computer_llc@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:56 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, Beth Angel PO Box 118 Cobalt, CT 06424 From: Sally Hayati <sallyhayati@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:38 PM 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, Sally Hayati 466 Calle de Aragon Redondo Beach, CA 90277 From: Jonathan Mobley <Jthin@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:38 PM 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, Jonathan Mobley Hc 33 #38 Pettigrew, AR 72701 From: shelva Wood <shelvajwood2004@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:29 PM 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, shelva Wood 1016 Acadia Drive Plano, TX 75023 From: DEBORAH SMITH <deborah993@cox.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:26 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable THIS IS A PROBLEM, AND A VERY SERIOUS ONE!!! 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, DEBORAH SMITH 3044 N.W. 30TH 3044 N.W. 30TH OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112 From: Colleen Lobel <clobel1@san.rr.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:23 PM 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, Colleen Lobel 8111 Kenova St San Diego CA 92126, CA 92126 From: Sandra Mikulich <smikulich@prodigy.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:23 PM 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, Sandra Mikulich 11425 Burton 11425 Burton Sugar Creek, MO 64054 From: Daryl Gale <turtleperson@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:19 PM 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, Daryl Gale 456 S. Main St. #419 Los Angeles, CA 90013 From: William Davis <rees@hvc.rr.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:18 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is totally unacceptable Thank you for finally focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. Nuclear energy should never have been developed until this problem was solved. 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 because it would only create more problems. No one charged with protection of public health, safety and security should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. How stupid can you get? 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. Moving the waste does not solve the problem, it INCREASES the problem!

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 stupid proposed legislation would virtually ensure that. I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future rather than the stupid narrow interests of the corrupt and fascist 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. We should nationalize ALL of the corrupt and fascist nuclear energy corporations and shut these ticking time bombs down NOW, before it's too late. Sincerely, William Davis 129 Wittenberg Road NY Bearsville, NY 12409 From: beate dietrich <beated1960@comcast.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:17 PM 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, beate dietrich colorado springs, CO 80907 From: Bozena Grossman <bozenag51@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:13 PM 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, Bozena Grossman 211East 7th Street Brooklyn, NY 11218 From: Doris Munger <dlmunger@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:12 PM 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, Doris Munger 56 Horton Lane New Canaan, CT 06840 From: Liz Helenchild <deejayliz@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:10 PM 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, Liz Helenchild Box 1276 Mendocino, CA 95460 From: Ruth Butler <blueetre@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:10 PM 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, Ruth Butler 1872 s 200 e slc, UT 84115 From: John Keiser <jlck@nyc.rr.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:08 PM 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, John Keiser

410 East 6 St., Apt. 17B New York, NY 10009 From: Kim Floyd <kimffloyd@fastmail.fm> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:07 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Say no to Radwaste discussion draft This makes no sense. We do not want to concentrate the storage of radioactive waste in some remote location to be ignored until something really bad happens. We need the nuclear industry to be held responsible for this waste and to be responsible to find permanent long term waste storage. 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, Kim Floyd

5375 Shirley J. Lane P. O. Box 422 Wrightwood, CA 92397 From: John Cruickshank <jcruickshank4@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:06 PM 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, John Cruickshank 324 Parkway St.

Charlottesville, VA 22902 From: Robert Clark <bclark@iserv.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:03 PM 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, Robert Clark 1153 W Glenlord Rd Lot 68 1153 W Glenlord Rd Lot 68 Saint Joseph, MI 49085

From: Catherine Loudis <CRLoudis@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 5:02 PM 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, Catherine Loudis 219 Butterfield Rd 219 Butterfield Rd SanAnselmo, CA 94960 From: Joanne Williams <joanne29206@yahoo.com>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 5:02 PM 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, Joanne Williams 6436 Sylvan Drive 6436 Sylvan Drive Columbia, SC 29206 From: Elisabeth Bechmann <elisabeth.bechmann@kstp.at> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:56 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, Elisabeth Bechmann Neugebudeplatz Neugebudeplatz St. Plten, ot 03100 From: Denise Green <dgreen@presidio-isd.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:53 PM 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, Denise Green PO Box 904 PO Box 904 Presidio, TX 79845 From: James Odling <odlingj@pipeline.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:53 PM 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, James Odling 5170 O'Sullivan Dr Los Angeles, CA 90032 From: jeri fioramanti <dancingcr0w@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:50 PM 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, jeri fioramanti 822 3rd. street green bay, WI 54304 From: Sandy McComb <sandy0110@frontier.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:46 PM 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, Sandy McComb 04933 Cecilia Dr. Apt. 501 South Haven, MI 49090 From: Stephen Battis <sbattis@tmlp.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:37 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Stephen Battis Middleboro, MA 02346 From: Karen Martellaro <kar4earth@kc.rr.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:35 PM 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, Karen Martellaro 8210 Caenen Lake Rd. 8210 Caenen Lake Rd. Lenexa, KS 66215 From: Dolores Pieper <dolorespie@embarqmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:32 PM 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, Dolores Pieper 486 Galahad Drive 486 Galahad Dr. Franklin, IN 46131 From: deb crippen <tributaries7@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:29 PM 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, deb crippen C R 103 florecne, CO 81226 From: Andrea Chavez <achavez86@clear.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:23 PM 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, Andrea Chavez 6807 Neston San Antonio, TX 78063 From: Mary R. Wolfe <omwolfmar@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:19 PM 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, Mary R. Wolfe 2 Oakridge Court Lutherville, MD 21093 From: E. C. Roy <staroyo@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:17 PM 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, E. C. Roy 450 E. Mills Ave - #19 Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, LA 70517 From: Kimberly Potter <potter.kimberly1@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:16 PM 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, Kimberly Potter

8905 Langwood Drive 104 Raleigh, NC 27613 From: Stuart Mork <morkabu@aim.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:15 PM 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, Stuart Mork 7710 31st Ave NW

Seattle, WA 98117 From: Jan Boudart <j-boudart@northwestern.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable I am Jan Boudart. I am strongly in favor of the following message which is created by THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE. Please consider this as my position. 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, Jan Boudart 1132 W. Lunt Ave. Chicago, IL 60626

From: Jan Boudart <j-boudart@northwestern.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:11 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Nuclear waste will have to be stored on sight in possibly vitrified form. However there is no really acceptable solution to the problem of nuclear waste. 1. transporting it to a central storage facility: Radiating people along the route and the workers who must deal with it is unacceptable. (The threat to Las Vegas before Yucca Mountain was dumped (pun) was extraordinary. Nevada was taking a gamble on an accident that it couldn't win.) 2. The French transport of waste to Siberia (and back) is appalling. Then to have it stored in open air as UF6 surpasses any toxicity I am even able to imagine. Someday the area my be -- climate wise -inhabitable, but it will take more than forever for the radiation and the toxic chemicals to be gone. 3. Dumping nuclear waste in the Channel made France a terrible neighbor to England. Now we want the U.S. States to be pitted against one another to decide who will take the others' waste. I don't want my living room to be used as somebody else's toilet. 4. We must stop creating nuclear waste. Deal with what we have as best we can and realize that the trade-offs for power will always be excruciating. However, we have to keep them within acceptable limits. Jan Boudart 1132 W. Lunt Ave. Chicago, IL 60626 From: Douglas Mason <dmm551@psu.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:08 PM 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, Douglas Mason 120 E. Beaver Ave., Apt. 310 State College, PA 16801 From: Emily Ford <teakford2@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:01 PM 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, Emily Ford 345 West 70th Street New York, NY 10023 From: Lloyd Hedger <lloydmhedger@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:01 PM 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, Lloyd Hedger 224 N G St. #405 Tacoma, WA 98403 From: Grace Adams <graceadams830@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:59 PM 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. Please dump the whole problem in the lap of US Navy. The have the world's best record on nuclear power safety. Being military, they can certainly cope with terrorists. If they believe they can make good use of spent nuclear power plant fuel rods, they most likely are right. It would take 3,000 years of just letting those nuclear fuel rods sit around in dry casks for the radioactivity level to decline to that of the ore from which they were made. That is as far into the future as the reign of King David of ancient Israel was in the past. I doubt the United States will still be a nation by then. I trust US Navy to do the right thing better than I trust any corporation, beholden only to its own stockholders.

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, Grace Adams 406 Valley St 3 none Willimantic, CT 06226 From: Steven Handwerker <drstevenehandwerker@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:57 PM 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, Steven Handwerker 6465 Via Benita 6465 Via Benita Boca Raton, FL 33488 From: Gayle Barrett <bcnu_intuscany@bellsouth.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:55 PM 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, Gayle Barrett N.W. 43rd Avenue nw 43 ave Pompano, FL 33066 From: Joni Solis <AnimalNewsInfo@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:54 PM 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, Joni Solis 644 Jaeger Road Kentwood, LA 70444 From: Greg Gentry <gsgentry@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:52 PM 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, Greg Gentry 2434 Frays Mill Rd Ruckersville, VA 22968 From: Mike McCormick <talkingsticktv@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:49 PM 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, Mike McCormick 1414 NE 70th Seattle, WA 98115 From: Phyllis Arist <lesmotsdujour@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:49 PM 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, Phyllis Arist 945 Ridge Evanston, IL 60202 From: Molly Madden <madden_molly@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:49 PM 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, Molly Madden 6328 Indiana 6328 Indiana K.C., MO 64132 From: Jennifer Salhus <jsalhus@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:48 PM 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, Jennifer Salhus 6 Naugatuck Norfolk, MA 02056 From: Sandra M Zwingelberg <ychild99@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:47 PM 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,

Sandra M Zwingelberg 782 S Lincoln St 782 S Lincoln St Denver, CO 80209 From: linda kirtz <lindakirtz@juno.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:46 PM 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, linda kirtz

Orcas, WA 98280 From: Alan Muller <greendel@dca.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:46 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable 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. 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, Alan Muller Box 69 Port Penn, DE 55066 From: Melissa Epple <santafemom@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:46 PM 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, Melissa Epple 20 Village Ln. Santa Fe, NM 87505 From: Pamela VourosCallahan <pamelazoe@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:46 PM 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, Pamela VourosCallahan 11761 Adams Road 11761 Adams Road Granger, IN 46530 From: jean hoegler <jhoegler@wheatonalumni.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:45 PM 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. No "mobile Chernobyl", now or ever, anywhere. 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. Please. Sincerely, jean hoegler 319 School St. Villa Park, IL 60181 From: Amy Gustin <amyacorneater@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:44 PM 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, Amy Gustin P.O. Box 2301 Redway, CA 95560 From: Donna Varner-Sheaves <FairQueen1@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:43 PM 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, Donna Varner-Sheaves 229 Haywicke Pl 229 Haywicke Pl Wake Forest, NC 27587 From: Joel Kay <jjkof1@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:38 PM 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, Joel Kay 10707 SE Stanley Ave none Milwaukie, OR 97222 From: Sister Mary Schmuck RSM <schmuckrsm@scnazarethky.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:36 PM 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, Sister Mary Schmuck RSM P O Box 3000 P O Box 3000 Nazareth, KY 40048 From: anne behroozi <anne_behroozi@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:34 PM 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, anne behroozi 1166 Nevada ave san jose, CA 95125 From: Kim Atkinson <kim@pulsewave.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:33 PM 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, Kim Atkinson PO Box 703 Sebastopol, CA 95473 From: Axel Vogt <vogt@ub.uni-freiburg.de> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:29 PM 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, Axel Vogt Reinhold-Schneider-Str. 15 Freiburg, ot 79117 From: JAMES CONROY <JIM214COMRAD@GMAIL.COM> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:28 PM 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, JAMES CONROY 214 NINTH STREET NINTH STREET HICKSVILLE, NY 11801 From: Shirley Cupani <scupani@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:27 PM 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,

Shirley Cupani 10434 E McLellan Rd 10434 E. McLellan Rd. Mesa, AZ 85207 From: Myra Remily <mremily@presentationsisters.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:22 PM 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, Myra Remily

1500 nth 2nd. st 1500nth.2nd.St. Aberdeen, SD 57401 From: Joy Perry <jperry4736@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:19 PM 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, Joy Perry 7046 Fairdale Ave.

Dallas, TX 75227 From: Carolyn Poinelli <gingkolady@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:18 PM 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, Carolyn Poinelli 36 Prince St #12 Boston, MA 02113 From: Barbara Bakie <babsbakie@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM 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, Barbara Bakie 211 N. 36th St. Nixa, MO 65714 From: Margaret Wright <mzwright@att.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:12 PM 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, Margaret Wright 162 Brevoort Rd 162 Brevoort Rd., Columbus 43214 Columbus, OH 43214 From: Lynne Teplin <lynnet@lagcc.cuny.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:10 PM 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, Lynne Teplin 830 Palmer Road #3B Bronxville, NY 10708 From: peter sipp <peterfoxsipp@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:04 PM 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, peter sipp 212 Short Michigan Asheville, NC 28806 From: Elizabeth S <elizabeth1961@care2.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:02 PM 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, Elizabeth S Ontario Ontario Ontario, ON 000000 From: Millard Martin <harpstring@CenturyTel.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:02 PM 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, Millard Martin 37194 Bay Street NE Hansville, WA 98340 From: Lisa Pelletier <lrp13@humboldt.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:01 PM 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, Lisa Pelletier P.O. Box 762 Arcata, CA 95521 From: Alex Snydman <alexsnydman@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 3:00 PM 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, Alex Snydman 24545 Town Center Drive Unit 5309 Valencia, CA 91355 From: Claire Mortimer <clairebearcfm@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:54 PM 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, Claire Mortimer PO Box 184 57 Brooklin, ME 04616 From: Kellie Smith <kelf.nh@live.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:54 PM 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, Kellie Smith 13 Brandy Lane Deering, NH 03244 From: Lynne Preston <bluelynne@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:52 PM 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, Lynne Preston 638 Rhode Island St. San Francisco, CA 94107 From: Jeff Salvaryn <musicnut21@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:50 PM 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,

Jeff Salvaryn 1528 Herrin St. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 From: Tim Milam <broncstim@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:48 PM 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, Tim Milam 1010 Country Club Drive

Mission, TX 78572 From: Jennifer Savage <jensav55@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:45 PM 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, Jennifer Savage 36 E. 69th St. New York, NY 10021 From: Patricia Constantino <patrianyc@hotmail.com>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 2:41 PM 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, Patricia Constantino 40 Third Street Brooklyn, NY 11231 From: Lucy Howard <lhoward_21034@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:41 PM 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, Lucy Howard 2400 Castleton Rd Darlington, MD 21034 From: Patricia Jessup <patsy.j@telkomsa.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:41 PM 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, Patricia Jessup 33 Derby Rd.,Kenilworth 33 Derby Rd.,Kenilworth Cape Town ., ot 7708 From: Madeline Aron <madelinearon@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:41 PM 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, Madeline Aron 1006 Richmond NE 1006 Richmond NE Albuquerque, NM 87106 From: Diane Whitmire <dragondw@sonic.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:34 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Our Country is at a perilous juncture in the road. It is time to stop pandering to the various industries, and do the real job and responsibility of a Senate Committee. It should NOT be a Senate Energy Committee, but a Senate INVESTIGATING Committee! Begin with the basic facts starting with the most critical in firt place: There is NO cure for Radiation Poisoning. Radioactive Waste has no Expiration Date for Shelf Life!!! Nuclear and Breeder Reactors have meltdowns BECAUSE Nuclear properties are ALWAYS Hot! Follow those simple truths with the old and on-going problem which has specifically to do with the "shelf life" and Radioactivity of anything Nuclear. It, like everything manmade, creates a waste product. This waste product is STILL HOT and Will Be for something like 500-1,000 years! No one knows! The utility companies and the Federal Gov't and it's Agencies, such as the DOE, have literally TONS of Radioactive Waste to dispose of. There is NO such thing as Safe Disposal of Radioactive Waste. It's always radioactive. You've created a monster. It's a "live" monster as a Reactor which is vulnerable to meltdowns thereby irradiating every living thing virtually everywhere due to wind drifts. That's just the Reactors. We not only have tons of our OWN radioactive waste we've no idea how to get rid of, but the U.S. has agreed to take Canada's? Ship it down through the States? Then what? There is NO KNOWN Containment for Radioactive Waste. It always erodes the container from the inside because....it's HOT! It will ALWAYS DO THIS! The DOE with the approval of the President has come up with "a" solution: Recycle both the liquid Radioactive waste by dumping it in our waters and recycle the solid Radioactive Waste by putting it in zippers, belt buckles, pet dishes, and other household products. What are you all about? What are you thinking? Is anyone connecting the dots? What ever gave any of you the idea that you had the RIGHT to actually recycle Radioactive Waste on the American People? It's time to lose the Good ol' boy network becauses you have all forgotten the purpose of your positions in Washington which is simply this: You are to Represent the American People! That's it. Fulfill your responsibility and defeat this Insanity! 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, Diane Whitmire Santa Rosa, CA 95404 From: Judith Janes <fabricwoman@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:32 PM 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, Judith Janes Spokane Valley, WA 99206 From: Steve Patton <VietVet.Surfer@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:32 PM 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, Steve Patton 1595 Linda Mar Blvd. Pacifica, CA 94044 From: Barbara Curtis <barb647@verizon.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:32 PM 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, Barbara Curtis 647-A Nutley Drive Monroe Twp, NJ 08831 From: Abe Levy <abe@slought.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:32 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Abe Levy 4875 Pelican Colony Boulevard #301 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 From: William Hofford <aradius@spiritone.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:28 PM 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,

William Hofford 4300 Sideburn Rd Fairfax, VA 22030 From: Dana Ginn <DGinn92591@cs.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:28 PM 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, Dana Ginn 31463 Britton Circle

Temecula, CA 92591 From: Adrianne Davis <davis.adrianne@icloud.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:22 PM 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, Adrianne Davis 1437 Hillcrest Road Santa Barbara, CA 93103 From: Christopher Camera <cwc0000@hotmail.com>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 2:18 PM 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, Christopher Camera 2256 Nottingham Road Upper Arlington, OH 43221 From: Rose Marie Cecchini, MM <officelpjcs@catholiccharitiesgallup.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:17 PM 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, Rose Marie Cecchini, MM 503 West Highway 66 Gallup, NM 87301 From: JIM HEAD <JIMHEADJR@HOTMAIL.COM> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:14 PM 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, JIM HEAD 15307 NORTHGATE APT#102 OAK PARK, MI 48237 From: C. P. Evelyn <bcharmz@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:12 PM 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, C. P. Evelyn 520 S Mariposa ave Los Angeles, CA 90020 From: Robert O'Brien <robrien2000@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:07 PM 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, Robert O'Brien 972 Allamanda DR. Delray Beach, FL 33483 From: John Daly <jackd@logancenter.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:07 PM 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, John Daly PO Box 696 217 West Michigan Street New Carlisle, IN 46552 From: sue colucci <sucolucci@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:07 PM 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, sue colucci 7155 Hillside Clarkston, MN 48346 From: Richard Ellison <climbwall@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:02 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste transportation is not safe! 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, Richard Ellison 8003 28th NE Seattle, WA 98115 From: David Schrom <david@ecomagic.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:58 PM 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, David Schrom 381 Oxford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 From: Jeffery Garcia <jeffery@mcn.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:58 PM 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, Jeffery Garcia PO Box 1166 Mendocino, CA 95460 From: cathy wells <wellscj@vmi.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:58 PM 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, cathy wells 93 broad wing trl lexington, VA 24450 From: judith bean <jellybeano@att.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:57 PM 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, judith bean 1727 woodhaven way oakland, CA 94611 From: Mary McMahon <marymcmahon@greynun.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:53 PM 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, Mary McMahon

1750 Quarry Rd. 1750 Quarry Rd. Yardley, PA 19067 From: LuAnna McNett <fairefarmtokitchen@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:52 PM 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, LuAnna McNett Eastsound, WA 98245

From: frank depinto <fdepinto@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:51 PM 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, frank depinto box 6194 chattanooga, TN 37401 From: diane crummett <dyanalake@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:51 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, diane crummett 12 dogwood, p.o. box 1047 p.o. box 1047 soap lake, WA 98851 From: Allison Ostrer <aostrer@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:50 PM 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, Allison Ostrer 1107 E Denny Way, #C-3 2 Seattle, WA 98122 From: arlene dreste <apdreste@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:47 PM 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, arlene dreste 2461 rosser rd 2461 rosser rd ajo, AZ 85321 From: Polly Meadows <polmea@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:42 PM 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, Polly Meadows 1068 Shallcross Lake Road Middletown, DE 19709 From: Kathryn Lemoine <truth58@bayou.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:39 PM 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, Kathryn Lemoine 106 Parkwest Drive Bldg. 3-C West Monroe, LA 71291 From: Thomas V. Connor <TConnor@hvc.rr.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:39 PM 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, Thomas V. Connor 17 Dubois Street 17 Dubois Street Wallkill, NY 12589 From: Tamadhur Al-Aqeel <tamadhur@sbcglobal.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:38 PM 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, Tamadhur Al-Aqeel 1816 S. Bedford St. Los Angeles, CA 90035 From: Geraldine May <huerhuero@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:38 PM 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, Geraldine May PO Box 153 9845 Huerhuero Rd. Santa Margarita, CA 93432 From: Deanna Nakosteen <deanna@west.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:34 PM 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, Deanna Nakosteen 10239 Ojai-Santa Paula Road Ojai, CA 93023 From: Pearl Goldman <wexford158@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:32 PM 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, Pearl Goldman 11460 NW 5th St Plantation, FL 33325 From: Sharon Root <sharonroot@co.lyon.mn.us> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:31 PM 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, Sharon Root 504 Fairgrounds Rd Marshall, MN 56258 From: cassandra church <sparrowcat2@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:31 PM 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, cassandra church 1853 county rd. 1853 country rd. e. montpelier, VT 05601 From: Steven Shore <wildginseng50@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:30 PM 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, Steven Shore 7 kingwood court 7 kingwood court Muttontown, NY 11791 From: Thomas Blanton <tebmtn@embarqmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:29 PM 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, Thomas Blanton 2228 Russell Drive Granite Falls, NC 28630 From: Renee Nelson <Idealfellow99@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:29 PM 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, Renee Nelson

370 Acacia Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93306 From: Ronald Lockwood <anteater11@verizon.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:27 PM 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, Ronald Lockwood 7110 Bensville Road White Plains, MD 20695

From: Rob Kulakofsky <lapidary_rob@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:26 PM 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, Rob Kulakofsky 1520 S. Desert Crest Dr. Tucson, AZ 85713 From: Shawn Boucher <shawnrb1976@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:26 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, Shawn Boucher Columbia, SC 29203 From: dave falcon <entrepreneur1@hotmail.co.uk> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:25 PM 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, dave falcon 26 windsor terr penicuik, NY 12345 From: Cindi Darling <darling339@earthlink.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:24 PM 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, Cindi Darling 339 Forrest Avenue Fairfax, CA 94930 From: Irene Radke <irenelillian@juno.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:24 PM 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, Irene Radke 4648 SW 38th Terr Dania Beach, FL 33312 From: Marilyn Kaggen <mkaggen@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:19 PM 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, Marilyn Kaggen 1910 Foster Brooklyn, NY 11230 From: Maureen Gettle <LORETTAIII@AOL.COM> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:18 PM 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, Maureen Gettle 225 Village Cove 225 Village Cove, Mt. Gretna, PA Mt. Gretna, PA 17064 From: Carol Held <clheld@tds.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:18 PM 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, Carol Held 3804 Bunker Hill Middleton, WI 53562 From: Alan Lawrence <amethystpurple1@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:18 PM 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, Alan Lawrence 6901 N. Haight Ave. Portland, OR 97217 From: Joseph Wasserman <joewass64@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:17 PM 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, Joseph Wasserman 87 Shadow Lane 87 Shadow Lane West Hartford, CT 06110 From: Joy Sullivan <lightjoy@ptd.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:17 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Joy Sullivan 16 Linmor Ave 16 linmor Ave Newton, NJ 07860 From: Linda Azzi <linda@corsazzi.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:14 PM 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, Linda Azzi 9850 Zenith Meridian Drive Englewood, CO 80112 From: Marshall Sanders <sandyssanders@att.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:02 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy) #12-203

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,

Marshall Sanders 2200 Adeline St., #250A 250a Oakland, CA 94607 From: Michael Gilbert <mykolas1601@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:02 PM 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, Michael Gilbert

8 Morris Rd 8 Morris Rd Bethpage, NY 11714 From: Carolyn Bame <harplady2@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:00 PM 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, Carolyn Bame 3335 North Manor Rd.

Flagstaff, AZ 86004 From: Gabrielle Swanberg <g_swanberg@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:00 PM 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, Gabrielle Swanberg 1649 Lancaster Dr 1649 Lancaster Dr p, CA 94954

From: Beth PIROLLI <tullytown15@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:00 PM 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, Beth PIROLLI 365 Main Street 365 MAIN STREET Tullytown, PA 19007 From: David Van Deusen <nitehowl@earthlink.net>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 12:59 PM 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, David Van Deusen 46 Zabel Hill Road Feura Bush, NY 12067 From: Linda Brodman <redwdrn@pacbell.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:55 PM 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, Linda Brodman Santa Cruz, CA 95062 From: Carolyn Cadigan <carolyncadigan@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:55 PM 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, Carolyn Cadigan 1940 Harlem Blvd. Rockford, IL 61103 From: Denise Caruana <denise.caruana95@live.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:52 PM 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, Denise Caruana Triq il-Batterija B'Bugia, HI BBG1121 From: Dorothy Louis <dorothylouis@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:51 PM 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, Dorothy Louis 33125 White Oak Rd., Corvallis, OR 33125White Oak Rd. Corvallis, OR 97333-2444 Corvallis, OR 97333 From: William Palmisano <palm1953@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:50 PM 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, William Palmisano 1578 Las Canoas Rd. 1578 Las Canoas Rd. Santa Barbara, CA 93105 From: sidney ramsden scott <sramsdenscott@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:50 PM 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, sidney ramsden scott p.o.box 3963 carmel, CA 93921 From: Elke Brandes <elke@antiatomfreiburg.de> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:49 PM 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. The waste has to be moved from the current fuel pools at reactors to dry containers at the same reactor site immediately. The production of nuclear wast must be stopped before the negotiation of a permanent repository becomes legitimate. 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. 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 is imperative.

Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, Elke Brandes Elke Brandes 134 Scott Blvd Decatur, GA 30030 From: Patrick Dreier <patrick.dreier@gmx.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:48 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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, Patrick Dreier Industrie 10 Industrie 10, ot 2114 From: Dee Halzack <dee.halz@ix.netcom.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:46 PM 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, Dee Halzack

318 Pawtucket St 318 Pawtucket St Lowell, MA 01854 From: Pamela Nesbit <panesbit@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:46 PM 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, Pamela Nesbit 117 Ponozzo Rd

Iron River, MI 49935 From: Patricia Sowards <trishandjorge@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:45 PM 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, Patricia Sowards 10410 93rd St SW TAcoma, WA 98498 From: Esther Zamora <ezjamoca@hotmail.com>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 12:44 PM 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, Esther Zamora 12456 Los Moras Way Victorville, CA 92392 From: LISA BASS <lisajbass@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:44 PM 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, LISA BASS po box 940083 houston, AK 99694 From: James Freeberg <jfreeberg0@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:37 PM 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, James Freeberg POB 938 POB 938 Ashland, OR 97520 From: melvin Taylor <melvin-taylor@usa.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:36 PM 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, melvin Taylor 6585 Calvine Road 6585 Calvine Road Sacramento, CA 95823 From: frank downey <zakk69@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:36 PM 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, frank downey 800 covan ave mobile, AL 36612 From: alina dollat <alina.dollat@laposte.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:33 PM 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, alina dollat 5 rue du marais 60270 gouvieux france gouvieux france, ot 60270 From: alina dollat <alina.dollat@laposte.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:33 PM 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, alina dollat 5 rue du marais 60270 gouvieux france gouvieux france, ot 60270 From: marilyn field <mfield1@san.rr.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:32 PM 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, marilyn field 1101 1st Street Apt. 208 Coronado, CA 92118 From: Nancy Wang <nancy@ethnohtec.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:30 PM 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, Nancy Wang San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94110 From: Jim Brown <brownjc0@frontiernet.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:30 PM 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, Jim Brown 581 Main St PO Box 193 Cedarville, CA 96104 From: Johanna Cummings <jhcummings@frontiernet.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:29 PM 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, Johanna Cummings 88 Hickory Street Rochester, NY 14620 From: Rebecca Ramsay <rebecca.ramsay2@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:26 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable During your deliberations on what to recommend for the disposal of nuclear waste materials, I hope you will want to consider comments made at the Blue Ribbon Commission Regional Meeting held in Boston on October 12, 2011. You may now be hearing from some of the people who attended that meeting and the other regional meetings. My statement is included in the report available at http:/brc.gov, under "Meetings," then "Regional Public Meetings" where you can read the Presentations (mine is the third from the end of the list.) Having read the January 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission Report to the Secretary of Energy, I see that none of my comments were incorporated into Section 2.3.1 on Ethical Responsibility. It would be nice to think that public input can be given greater consideration in your recommendations. Sincerely, Rebecca Ramsay Five Exeter park Five Exeter Park, Cambridge, MA 02140-2215

Cambridge, MA 02140 From: Davis & Rhonda Costas-Mirza <davismirza@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:26 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Canadians Urge: Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable As concerned Canadians, we thank you the US Senate 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. We 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, Davis & Rhonda Costas-Mirza 29 Hamilton 29 Hamilton St. Toronto, CANADA, NY 14301

From: jim phillips <jdphillips@ureach.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:25 PM 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, jim phillips po 2381 stone rd los banos, CA 93635 From: James Love <alohaland@gmail.com>

Sent: To:

Friday, May 17, 2013 12:23 PM 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, James Love P.O. Box 1838 P.O. Box 1838 Honoka'a, HI Honoka'a, HI 96727 From: A M Frank <crabcakegranny@msn.com> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:22 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, A M Frank P O Box 2173 18825 94th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98020 Forney, TX 98296 From: Ran Zirasri <hawkins_j_m@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:22 PM 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, Ran Zirasri 301 11th Ave. NW Mandan, ND 58554 From: Linda Griggs <griggsquaker@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:21 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

Thank you for examining the essenial area of the radioactive waste problem. It should be an extremely high priority! The nation's high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only aggravate 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 Griggs 147 Mosley Drive, Apt 2 none Syracuse, NY 13206 From: Claudia Van Gerven <claudia.vangerven@colorado.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:21 PM 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, Claudia Van Gerven 727 Ithaca Dr. Boulder, CO 80305 From: Ken Segal <knsegal@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:21 PM 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, Ken Segal 58 Hilltop Acres Yonkers, NY 10704 From: Rachel Gottman <rgottman@emich.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:21 PM 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, Rachel Gottman Bemis Rd. Ypsilanti, MI 48197 From: Dave Brast <dbrast@svn.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:21 PM 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, Dave Brast P.O. Box 484 Inverness, CA 94937 From: R Peterson <petersonjrm@ymail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:20 PM 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, R Peterson Island Charleston, SC 29407 From: L.J. Adams <lou4261@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:17 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Keep our Highways/citizens safe: Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable The Senate Energy Comm. proposal will create/foster more problems than it solves. However, thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should highest priority. The nation's high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken. However, 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, L.J. Adams po Box 6196 2341 Arb. Hills Dr. Jackson, MI 49204 From: Nicholas Merry <nmerry1@binghamton.edu> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:16 PM 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, Nicholas Merry Johnson City, NY 13790 From: Janka Gera <gera.janka@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:16 PM 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, Janka Gera 1. Dank Szatymaz, ot 6763 From: Carol Maghakian <carol.maghakian@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:12 PM 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,

Carol Maghakian 6457 Sweet Gum Trail 6 Myrtle Beach, SC 29588 From: feedback, nwaste (Energy) Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:23 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:RE: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Apologies! Please find the template at: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/nuclear-wastebill-feedback From: Kara Colton [mailto:Kara.Colton@energyca.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:52 AM To: feedback, nwaste (Energy) Subject: RE: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Dear Sir or Madam, Is there a chance you can resend me the template for submitting comments? I am afraid they did not make it through with your message re: feedback. Much appreciated, Kara Colton Kara Colton Director of Nuclear Energy Programs Energy Communities Alliance 1101 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Office: (202) 828-2439 Cell: (703) 864-3520

kara.colton@energyca.org http://www.energyca.org/ From: feedback, nwaste (Energy) [mailto:nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:42 AM To: feedback, nwaste (Energy) Subject: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Dear Colleagues, On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussion-draft-ofcomprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. By now we hope you have heard that the senators are seeking comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators have posed eight questions on which they request comments. Please view this email as thanks for already having taken time to discuss your perspectives on the bill with the Senators and staff. We hope you will also provide your comments in a formal manner through this submission email and the website as suggested below. Please direct any questions about the process to nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov; we look forward to hearing from you. Directions for Submissions Please submit comments electronically to: Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov Submission due date: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:00pm (EST) The documents attached below can be used as a template for submitting comments. We request that you submit your comments in the template format, but will accept comments in other formats. Please feel free to respond to as many or as few of the questions as you like. Please provide your name and affiliation in the header of your comments. The committee may post the comments, including any personal identifying information you provide (street or e-mail addresses, or phone numbers) it receives on its website. If you would like your personal identifying information withheld, please indicate that. The comment period will close on Friday, May 24, 2013.

Please find the submission documents below and the link to the discussion draft, summaries and questions here <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussiondraft-of-comprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> . From: Aleita Hass-Holcombe <aleita@cmug.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:19 AM 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, Aleita Hass-Holcombe 2022 NW Myrtlewood Way 2022 NW Myrtlewood Way

Corvallis, OR 97330 From: M. Sims <menucha65@verizon.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:28 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Mobile Chernobyl Bill from Senators Wyden, Murkowski, Feinstein, and Alexander I oppose parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste, and the risky irradiated nuclear fuel shipments they would launch onto our roads, rails, and waterways. This would be not only a serious nuclear weapons proliferation risk <http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/Reprocessingwebview.pdf> , but also a risk of widespread radioactive contamination of the environment downwind and downstream. It would also cost taxpayers and/or ratepayers many tens of billions of dollars. Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) <http://ieer.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2010/03/HOSS_PRINCIPLES_3-23-10x.pdf> makes a lot more sense than this bad bill. HOSS calls for emptying vulnerable high-level radioactive waste storage pools into on-site dry cask storage, but would require significant upgrades to the safety, security, and environmental protections associated with dry cask storage: safeguards against accidents <http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreactorstorage/drycaskfactsheet07152004.pdf> and natural disasters; concealment, distancing between casks, and fortification against attacks; and quality assurance on cask design and fabrication <http://www.nirs.org/radwaste//atreactorstorage/shiranialleg04.htm> to ensure they will last not decades <http://www.beyondnuclear.org/radioactive-waste-whatsnew/2013/4/28/agency-warns-highlevel-nuke-waste-casks-deteriorating-alrea.html> , but centuries, without leaking radioactivity into the environment. Nearly 200 environmental groups, representing all 50 states, have endorsed HOSS. <http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HOSS_PRINCIPLES_3-23-10x.pdf> They've been calling for it for well over a decade now. A strong linkage between "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal should be reestablished in this proposed legislation. The risk of de facto permanent parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste is unacceptable! Rushing into Mobile Chernobyl shipments, and playing a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways, makes no sense and takes unnecessary risks. Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) should be required instead, as a common sense interim alternative to this bill's bad ideas. Ms. M. Sims, Montclair NJ 07042 From: Danielle Crouch <dcrouch12@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:21 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Please do NOT allow toxic nuclear waste to be moved to interim storage sites, especially not without first requiring the decision of a safer, permanent site. Allowing interim storage sites will simply mean that dangerous nuclear waste will be moved more often, and without an identified permanent site in mind the interim site will simply become a de facto permanent site. Moving nuclear waste is dangerous, and it should be done with as much caution, and as infrequently, as possible. Carting these toxins around without a long-term plan is foolish, and will not be tolerated. Danielle Crouch Brattleboro, VT 05301 From: Jim Stewart <jim@earthdayla.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:50 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:We need safe disposal of Radwaste, your 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 exacerabate 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, Jim Stewart 1216 S. Westlake Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90006 From: Joan Makurat <joan@bmsi.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:26 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) 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 exacerabate 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,

Joan Makurat 10816 Verde Vista Dr Fairfax, VA 22030 From: kathleenroper <kroper49@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:18 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:barge shipments Hello, Please vote not to allow barge shipments on Lake Michigan. One accident is all we would need to destroy our lake. It's just too risky. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Kathy Roper 2932 Peach Creek Court Fennville, MI 49408 616-610-0669From: Sent: To: thomas coulson <tomcoulson@aol.com>

Friday, May 17, 2013 8:56 AM 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 exacerabate the problems. As long as there is no capacity to neutralize these toxic fuel rods, our nation should move to stop producing them and leave those already produced where they are. Technology is moving ahead at a rate that would allow the plans for additional nuclear power plants to be abandoned, if the sudden and drastic change in the cost of natural gas doesn't automatically do so.

Meanwhile, simply moving the problem of nuclear waste around the nation does nothing but make room for the production and storage of more such waste at the existing plants. thomas coulson 1001 reemes cove rd. Marshall, NC 28753 From: Shoshannah Benmosch <biophilial@verizon.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:23 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:hlr-waste discussion draft Thanks for accepting public comment on your draft. I do not see how the issues surrounding multiple relocations for interim storage of hlr-waste have changed since last visited and found unacceptable by both Congress and Executive Branches of our government. My understanding is that until such time as geologically stable safe permanent sites are found, it remains from both public safety and taxpayer liability perspectives necessary to deal with hlr-waste at the site of production and with the safest technology currently available. HOSS dry-cask containment for interim storage seems far less vulnerable to identified risks than prolonged interim wet storage. HOSS is strongly supported by the scientifically informed. Their consensus urges dry-cask containment be required for all cooled hlr-waste in "interim" on-site storage facilities and a requirement for its onetime off-site transportation to a geologically stable "permanent" storage site. Protecting public health, environmental protections and the interests of current and future taxpayers (rather than the financial interests of the nuclear power industry), should be the effects of your proposed law. Propping up a failed industry at the expense of the public's health and purse is what is served by this dangerous buck-shifting proposal. Which reflects a perverse hierarchy of values. It is corrupt. It is unacceptable! Knowledgable opinion holders and public interest advocates agree that appropriately engineered Hardened On-Site Storage units and "interim" storage facilities designed to contain those units for hundreds of years must be built on the sites where the waste is produced until a permanent multimillenia solution is found. A permanent solution is urgently needed given the geological precariousness of most of our hlr-waste generating sites being located on fault lines. The fact that no permanent solution is yet known heightens the insanity of continuing to proliferate hlr-waste despite having no affordable way to live with it or safe way of disposing of it.

Why aren't we legislating the decommissioning of nuclear plants? Drafting laws to protect the public from the heightened risks of operating aging nuclear power plants beyond their designed life expectancy and below their original safety specifications? Counting all the costs nuclear is unprofitable and uninsurable. Let it go! The American taxpayer doesn't need to bailout another failed industry and exempt it from cleaning up its own mess. Please put your law drafting enthusiasm into drafting just laws. Require a permanent solution to a dirty industry. Do not download its liabilities and costs onto the public. There are cheap, direct, and non-poluting ways to generate hot water and electricity. Stop the production of hlr-waste and start permanently decommissioning nuclear fission hot-water-powered electricity generation plants and start investing in a viable future for our species in the world. Sincerely, Shoshannah Benmosch 910 West End Ave. 8D New York, NY 10025 From: Donald Wallace <donwwallace@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:35 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. 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. You should instead focus on a solution to eliminate ANY future nuclear waste due to power generation needs: There is a scientifically accepted solution, (Argonne National Laboratory, 1979); (see:http://www.fusionpowercorporation.com/references/appendices/30-years-ofhif-endorsements) workable NOW, for the world's energy challenge ... no highly radioactive waste materials, no new CO2 in the atmosphere and locatable on any seashore where the heat of fusion (how the sun works) can be harnessed to cheaply desalinate ocean water creating 3000 acre-feet of potable water per day (3000 acre-feet = 977 554 286 US gallons), (see: http://www.fusionpowercorporation.com/freshwater2), as well as an oil field's worth of liquid fuels (500,000 barrels of gasoline, diesel, etc) by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere (ultimately carbon neutral because carbon is put back as we use the fuel)(see: http://www.fusionpowercorporation.com/liquid-fuel-and-hydrogen2) and simultaneously generate 10 GW+ of electricity, all using known technologies (except for the fusion containment part). Fusion without laser or Tokamak problems!

RF Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion (RFADHIF), the elegant solution to abundant energy, clean water and transitional fuel to get humanity to and through the electric car economy has been endorsed by physicists as "the conservative solution" to fusion energy generation. See: (https://4b35dbeb-a62cb3a1a-ssites.googlegroups.com/site/fusionpowercorporationv30/documents/Picture%2064.png?attachauth=A NoY7cps12oyRxX8C81v6vPE9lhTyjAPZR8ENo7wcVEGPnNb9cOPh4z5bY3WxLsW1DILVtfpySO5tjfmFtiMe wGGk5vm2K344siewzjmw5G2FMsxHUxZpAeRt6SubyyCjWFY_wfpHGdIEj2QtlPf07Qfbxg7gWuIZTmX9C_qADcFi0sFTcxV 2VZVjDgL4sOVoE9F6oV7emtq9aNlEJLKCQILjZ85jpHIPOMFNESsIzPbztrm80PvKldP6XAX0tHkHkH_qOJmBd&attredirects=0) The science and the engineering are well understood (heavy ion particle accelerators, heat exchange systems, steam turbines, desalinization, atmospheric carbon chemistry, etc.) All for about the cost of 7.5 months (@6.7 billion per month) of the "war on terror" to free us from foreign oil, climate change, blackouts, brownouts, gas shortages, nuclear waste storage issues (except for the existing waste), job limiting energy pricing for energy intense industries, no mining will be needed in order to sustain the operation, ... It will provide: An abundant source of 'clean green and very safe' energy; Jobs, jobs and more jobs; A safe energy system - the safe nuclear energy that everyone wants; A source of carbon neutral liquid fuels to maintain the existing transportation system; A source of water to coastal communities in parts of the world where water supply is limited (pumpable inland); A sunset of the fission and fossil fuel age; A cost stabilized source of energy for industry (='s jobs); A stabilization and potential reversal of carbon in the atmosphere; An increase in standards of living for the world; An increase in the life of oil, natural gas and coal for industrial products... Support the building of a RF Accelerator Driven Heavy Ion Fusion (RFADHIF) system to solve the world energy crisis not ITER. RFADHIF can produce 100GW of thermal energy using classical physics ... no research necessary. (92:1) Fusion power is not a distant hope. It is currently a realizable technology that that can be applied today. It can, and will, solve our energy problem. See also: 1. A Google talk by FPC President, Charles E. Helsley in Los Angeles 2. The presentations by President, Dr. Charles E. Helsley and Chief Technology Officer and Chairman, Robert J. Burke at the HIF 2010 Symposium in Darmstadt, Germany 3. The talks by Dr. Burke, Dr. Helsley and Dr. A. Burke at the Workshop for Accelerators for Heavy Ion Fusion in May 2010 at Berkeley, California 4. A You Tube Video by Finecut "StarPower for Tomorrow" www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a7f1QGGYiY 5. http://www.fusionpowercorporation.com/home/summary 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. 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, Donald Wallace 1710 Cold Canyon Rd 1710 Cold Canyon Road Calabasas, CA 91302 From: Nancy Hiestand <nancya0624@aol.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:18 AM 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 exacerabate 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, Nancy Hiestand 526 South Campus Way, Davis Davis Davis, CA 95616 From: Michael Worsham <marylandmichael@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:43 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Senate radioactive waste discussion draft is not acceptable Thank you for focusing on the radioactive waste problem. It should be of utmost priority. The nation's high-level radioactive waste program is broken, but the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only exacerabate the problems. Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at all, and is 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 likely ensure that.

I ask you to please 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. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael Worsham 1916 Cosner Road 1916 Cosner Road Forest Hill, MD 21050 From: David Broadwater <csi@thegrid.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:36 PM 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 exacerabate 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, David Broadwater 6604 Portola Road 6604 Portola Road Atascadero, CA 93422 From: Janice Niehaus <Jan@CommunicationByDesign.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:14 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:(SENDER VALIDATION FAILED --- May not have originated from apparent sender ) Discussion draft legislationon radioactive waste must be scrapped While it is absolutely true that our nation desperately needs a solution the problem of radioactive waste storage, the Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation moves us FARTHER from a solution. Neither the public nor the environment, both of which have been entrusted to for safe-keeping as our elected officials, will benefit from this proposed legislation. In truth, the nuclear power industry would be the only beneficiary of such a thoughtless program. Be honest: Would you even consider such a fool-hardy without extreme pressure (and perhaps carrots as well) from the nuclear power industry? This legislation would authorize transporting tens of thousands of casks containing lethal radioactive waste on the roads, railways and waterways of our nation through major cities and across America's agricultural heartland. And you talk about protecting us from terrorists?!?!? Amazing that you do not consider THIS mobile target a national threat! An average truck-sized would carry the radiological equivalent of 40 Hiroshima bombs. A rail cask would hold 200 Hiroshima bombs worth of radiation. Now, with reference to the the "interim" solution defined in the draft legislation: If the sites you propose are, in fact, temporary, then we citizens and the only environment we have will be exposed to these mobile risks a second (at least) time, when said radioactive waste travels from the interim to some

yet-to-be-envisioned permanent sites. No one charged with protecting the health, safety and security of the public should mandate moving deadly radioactive waste repeatedly. How about if you just find some permanent sites NOW? Better yet, let the utilities, which are generating this toxic waste in the first place, solve the problem themselves. I am really tired of industry (consider mountain top removal coal mining, as another example) externalizing the cost of their irresponsible production methods, saddling taxpayers with the burden. Also, my understanding is that the utilities are liable for this radioactive waste when it's on their property, while we taxpayers become liable when it's moved outside their gates. Why in the world should we accept such a catastrophic responsibility and fiscal burden when our federal budgets are already overly stressed? If we are really committed to reducing federal expenses, then we certainly should not be taking on this additional massive and eternal expense. My final concern relates to the way in which this discussion draft legislation the delinks the issue of interim storage from progress toward a permanent solution. This delinking is even more profound in the Feinstein/Alexander alternative. Without such a linking provision, it more likely that temporary sit would become de facto permanent nuclear waste dumps. No state or community should accept this. Solutions: Make the waste-generators bear the financial responsibility of moving this waste from the current fuel pools at their own reactor sites to secure dry casks at the same reactor sites. They must then harden the material in situ to prevent attack or destruction by natural or other disaster. .. while you, our elected problem-solvers, work on finding a permanent solution. So far I've talked only about how to handle the radioactive waste that has already been generated. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to phase out the use of nuclear power altogether and replace it with clean energy sources. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Instead of bailing out the nuclear energy industry, please hold them accountable. Most sincerely, your reliable voter, Janice Niehaus 1602 Bellevue Avenue 1602 Bellevue Avenue Richmond Heights, MO 63117 From: Jane Auringer Danjin <jane_danjin@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:10 PM 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. 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 OnSite Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative.Thank you. Jane Auringer Danjin 518 Rawlins St. Apt. 3 Port Huron, MI 48060 From: Phyliss Sladek <sladek7@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:01 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable Thank you for your efforts to address the radioactive waste problem. Also, I greatly appreciate your providing a way for citizens to comment on this bill. Here is an outline of my objections to the draft: 1. There is no reason whatsoever to construct interim storage facilities, and many reasons to refrain from this plan. A. The interim sites are not really interim - this is extremely misleading. The material will remain in the "interim" sites if no permanent sites are found, and even then, the amount to be transferred is conditional and not guaranteed. Indefinite is equal to forever. B. Communities will not want so-called temporary sites in their area, any more than they would want permanent sites. C. This draft bill simply avoids the storage problem. It does not solve it; it is not even a meaningful attempt at a solution. 2. Transporting lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site is 1) expensive; 2) hazardous; 3) risks disasters, which would require even more expense to clean up. 4) The risk is greatly

increased with multiple moves, as are proposed by this draft bill. The entire proposal is extremely disingenuous. 3. Progress on a permanent solution is where you should put your energy. 4. If there is no solution, then the plants need to be closed. It's that simple. 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 OnSite Storage and renewed work on finding a permanent solution is imperative. Please scrap your "discussion draft" and start over. Sincerely, P. Sladek Phyliss Sladek PO Box 13888 1185 Anderson lane Santa Barbara, CA 93111 From: Catherine Miller <trevelloe@aol.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:51 PM 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 exacerabate 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, Catherine Miller 201 West 92nd Street #6C New York, NY 10025 From: Sandra M. Cobb <smcobb@beechmere.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:27 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radioactive Waste Our roads, railways and waterways are no place for temporary or permanent radioactive waste storage. Any movement of this waste must be to a permanent facility set up to protect all of us from its poisons. Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) is necessary. Any please don't try to foist waste off on our Native Americans or their property. Thank you for your attention. Sandra Cobb 3880 Elledale Road Moreland Hils, OH 44022 From: Mark Hein <markheindr@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:09 PM

To:

feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste -- "Interim Storage" Is Unsustainable 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 Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation would only exacerabate the problems. Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site would not fix any problems at all -- it is not a solution, and is unsustainable. While the waste must be moved at some point, current safety technology allows only moving it from the spent fuel pools to dry containers on the reactor site. Any other movement must be to a permanent location, for permanent isolation. So-called "interim" storage sites would increase the risk of accidents and security problems -- and guarantee increased exposure to ionizing radiation along public-use highways, rails and waterways. And the "interim" period for using these sites is unknown. This false fix would only help to delay finding a permanent isolation site -- while the temporary, unsuitable site would become a de facto permanent dump. No state or community should or would accept such an outcome. I ask you to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future -- not the narrow interests of the nuclear power industry. The best way to limit the scope of the radioactive waste problem is, of course, to phase out nuclear power and replace it with clean energy sources. As for the waste that already exists, we must pursue Hardened On-Site Storage and renewed efforts to find a safe permanent solution. Sincerely, Mark Hein 21500 Colina Dr. Topanga, CA 90290 From: Patrick Bosold <bosolds@lisco.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:05 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Senate Energy Committee's "discussion draft" legislation on Radioactive Waste 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, Patrick Bosold 202 N. 5th St. Fairfield, IA 52556 From: Pamela Anne Lowry <aynlowry@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:49 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste discussion draft is unacceptable

The nation's high-level radioactive waste program is indisputably broken. Unfortunately, the fix the Senate Energy Committee is considering -- it's "discussion draft" legislation -- would only exacerbate the problems. Moving lethal high-level radioactive waste to a consolidated interim site will not fix any problems at all, and is simply unacceptable. 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 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. The Committee needs to focus on public health, environmental protection and equity for the future of our country, and not just the narrow interests of a 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, Pamela Anne Lowry I don't give this out Berkeley, CA 94704 From: Barbara S. Crow <hiker@hiwaay.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:32 PM 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 exacerabate 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. This plan is only "kicking the can down the road". Nuclear power, itself, should be scrapped. There is no absolutely safe nuclear facility; there is no completely safe place to store the waste; it's dangerous in every phase and no one wants the waste to be stored near them. It's also a terrible thing to do to the earth and the ecosystems that support us. Sincerely, Barbara S. Crow 7817 Alabama Highway 33 Moulton, AL 35650 From: Deborah Veneziale <deby.veneziale@gmail.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:00 PM 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 exacerabate 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, Deborah Veneziale 7 W 41st Ave. #413 San Mateo, CA 94403 From: Steven Starr <starrst@health.missouri.edu> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:43 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Radwaste draft Dear Senate Energy Committee, It is a bad idea to ship nuclear waste across US highways and railways, it invites a radiological disaster that could put entire interstates and rail lines out of service indefinitely, not to mention making cities and farmland uninhabitable, and exposing large numbers of people to dangerous ionizing radiation. You have to admit that there is no way to be sure that an accident or terrorist attack would not occur, that would lead to such a scenario. There is, however, a much simpler and better solution.

That is, to use Hardened On-Site Storage, to safely isolate and store the spent fuel on-site. This would preclude the many dangers and expenses associated with shipment of the waste, while providing a safe and acceptable means to remove the waste from overcrowded spent fuel pools, which also invite terrorist attack. Sincerely, Steven Starr Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility Steven Starr 35 N Cedar Drive W, #103 Columbia, MO 65203 From: Andrea Shipley <andrea_shipley@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:39 PM 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 exacerabate 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, Andrea Shipley 4702 Castlebar Drive 4702 Castlebar Drive Boise, ID 82435 From: James Mulcare <xsecretsx@cableone.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:36 PM 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 exacerabate 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, James Mulcare 1110 Benjamin St Clarkston, WA 99403 From: Sewell, Michael <Michael.Sewell@pgnmail.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:08 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Duke Energy comments on questions associated with the draft of the Nuclear Waste Administration Act Attachments: 2013-05 Responses to Questions on Wyden et. al. Discussion Draft final.docx

Attached are Duke Energys responses to the questions posed by the Senate staff in connection with the Wyden NWA Act discussion draft legislation. From: Sewell, Michael Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:15 PM To: 'Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov' Subject: Duke Energy comments on discussion draft of the Nuclear Waste Administration Act Attached please find Duke Energys comments on the draft bill. Do not hesitate to contact us with questions or requests for clarification. Thank you, Mike Sewell ______________________ Mike Sewell Duke Energy 202.331.8090 michael.sewell@duke-energy.com From: stuart phillips <stulips@hotmail.com>

Sent: To:

Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:56 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:DON'T launch shipments of high-level radioactive waste onto the roads, rails, and waterways in unprecedented numbers, bound for "consolidated interim storage sites," from which they would have to be removed someday, to permanent dumpsites. Unless, that i Currently proposed legislation is significantly worse than the bill proposed last September by U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the now-retired former chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Although Bingaman unaccetably "gave away" the first 10,000 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel for "centralized interim storage" as a political compromise (a "pilot" parking lot dump, strongly advocated by Sen. Feinstein, with no strings attached to permanent disposal), his bill would have required linkage between permanent disposal and any further "centralized interim storage." He did this in order to guard against "interim" storage sites -- including one threatened in his own state of New Mexico, at WIPP -from becoming de facto permanent surface storage, if a geologic repository is never pursued, developed, and operated. The most likely targets for "consolidated interim storage sites" are at DOE facilities, including the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, the Idaho National Lab, and as previously mentioned, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. In fact, SRS hopes to reprocess the irradiated nuclear fuel moved there for "consolidated interim storage." This would be not only a serious nuclear weapons proliferation risk <http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/Reprocessingwebview.pdf> , but also a risk of widespread radioactive contamination of the environment downwind and downstream. It would also cost taxpayers and/or ratepayers many tens of billions of dollars. Other likely targets for "consolidated interim storage sites" are Native American reservations, as well as nuclear power plants themselves. Over the course of decades, scores of Native American reservations have been targeted for high-level radioactive waste parking lot dumps, a shameful history of environmental racism. <http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/scullvalley/historynativecommunitiesnuclearwaste06142005.pdf> And, as but one of numerous such examples, Illinois' three-reactor Dresden nuclear power plant, and immediately adjacent General Electric-Morris reprocessing facility, already "host" around 3,000 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel on a single site. There is a high risk that this bill, if enacted, would increase the pressure to import and "consolidate" yet more waste there, as documented in an Oak Ridge study. <http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub37008.pdf> Rushing into high-level radioactive waste shipments on the roads, rails, and waterways makes no sense. Risks of Mobile Chernobyls, Dirty Bombs on Wheels, and Floating Fukushimas include severe accidents (high-speed crashes; high-temperature, long-duration fires; underwater submersions; etc.) or even intentional attacks. Such shipments to parking lot dumps would merely launch a radioactive waste shell game, as the wastes would have to be moved again someday, this time to permanent disposal sites. Thus, high-level radioactive waste transport risks would be multiplied, for no good reason.

Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) <http://ieer.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2010/03/HOSS_PRINCIPLES_3-23-10x.pdf> makes a lot more sense than this bad bill. HOSS calls for emptying vulnerable high-level radioactive waste storage pools into on-site dry cask storage, but would require significant upgrades to the safety, security, and environmental protections associated with dry cask storage: safeguards against accidents <http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreactorstorage/drycaskfactsheet07152004.pdf> and natural disasters; concealment, distancing between casks, and fortification against attacks; and quality assurance on cask design and fabrication <http://www.nirs.org/radwaste//atreactorstorage/shiranialleg04.htm> to ensure they will last not decades <http://www.beyondnuclear.org/radioactive-waste-whatsnew/2013/4/28/agency-warns-highlevel-nuke-waste-casks-deteriorating-alrea.html> , but centuries, without leaking radioactivity into the environment. Nearly 200 environmental groups, representing all 50 states, have endorsed HOSS. <http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HOSS_PRINCIPLES_3-23-10x.pdf> They've been calling for it for well over a decade now. Strong linkage between "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal be re-established in this proposed legislation! Warn them that the risk of de facto permanent parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste is unacceptable! Let them know that rushing into Mobile Chernobyl shipments, and playing a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways, makes no sense and takes unnecessary risks. Urge that Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) be required instead, as a common sense interim alternative to this bill's bad ideas. stu lips, eugene, or From: Tom Jackson <scrimm@comcast.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:56 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Mobile Chernoble Just say no! We dont want to take the chance of being irradiated! Find a way to break it down. From: Michael Mariotte <nirsnet@nirs.org> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:34 PM 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 exacerabate 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, Michael Mariotte 3708 Webster Street Brentwood, MD 20722 From: Sharon Moss <pichwi@att.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:38 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Mobile Chernobyl Bill Dear Senator Wyden: I would like to urge that a strong linkage between "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal be re-established in this proposed legislation! The risk of de facto permanent parking lot dumps

for high-level radioactive waste is unacceptable! Rushing into Mobile Chernobyl shipments, and playing a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways, makes no sense and takes unnecessary risks. It is important that Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) be required instead, as a common sense interim alternative to this bill's bad ideas. Sincerely, Sharon Moss From: Brian O'Connell <brianandkaye@comcast.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:32 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Comments on Nuclear Waste Discussion Draft Attachments: Executive_Summary_BRIAN OCONNELL_PRIVATE CITIZEN.doc; Question1_Brian O'Connell_Private CitizenION-1.doc; Question2_BRIAN_PRIVATE CITIZEN-2.doc; Question3_BRIAN O'CONNELL_PRIVATE CITIZENdoc; Question4_BRIAN O'CONNELL_PRVATE CITIZEN.doc; Question5_BRIAN O'CONNELL_PRIVATE CITIZEN_ON-1.doc; Question6_BRIAN O'CONNELL_PRIVATE CITIZENdoc; Question7_BRIAN O'CONNELL_PRIVATE CITIZEN.doc; Question8_BRIAN O'CONNELLL_PRIVATE CITIZEN.doc Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the discussion draft. Brian OConnell Alexandria, VA From: Kara Colton <Kara.Colton@energyca.org> Sent: To: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:52 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:RE: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Dear Sir or Madam, Is there a chance you can resend me the template for submitting comments? I am afraid they did not make it through with your message re: feedback. Much appreciated, Kara Colton Kara Colton

Director of Nuclear Energy Programs Energy Communities Alliance 1101 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Office: (202) 828-2439 Cell: (703) 864-3520 kara.colton@energyca.org http://www.energyca.org/ From: feedback, nwaste (Energy) [mailto:nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:42 AM To: feedback, nwaste (Energy) Subject: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Dear Colleagues, On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussion-draft-ofcomprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. By now we hope you have heard that the senators are seeking comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators have posed eight questions on which they request comments. Please view this email as thanks for already having taken time to discuss your perspectives on the bill with the Senators and staff. We hope you will also provide your comments in a formal manner through this submission email and the website as suggested below. Please direct any questions about the process to nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov <mailto:nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov> ; we look forward to hearing from you. Directions for Submissions Please submit comments electronically to: Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov Submission due date: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:00pm (EST)

The documents attached below can be used as a template for submitting comments. We request that you submit your comments in the template format, but will accept comments in other formats. Please feel free to respond to as many or as few of the questions as you like. Please provide your name and affiliation in the header of your comments. The committee may post the comments, including any personal identifying information you provide (street or e-mail addresses, or phone numbers) it receives on its website. If you would like your personal identifying information withheld, please indicate that. The comment period will close on Friday, May 24, 2013. Please find the submission documents below and the link to the discussion draft, summaries and questions here <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussiondraft-of-comprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> . From: Ben Husch <ben.husch@ncsl.org> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:54 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:RE: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Thank you for the email. The National Conference of Legislatures (NCSL) does plan on submitting comments on the discussion draft although will likely be submitting them sometime next week. Ben Husch Committee Director, Energy, Transportation and Agriculture Committee National Conference of State Legislatures 444 North Capitol St., NW Suite 515 Washington, DC 20001 202-624-7779 <http://www.ncsl.org/summit> From: feedback, nwaste (Energy) [mailto:nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:42 AM To: feedback, nwaste (Energy) Subject: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013

Dear Colleagues, On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussion-draft-ofcomprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. By now we hope you have heard that the senators are seeking comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators have posed eight questions on which they request comments. Please view this email as thanks for already having taken time to discuss your perspectives on the bill with the Senators and staff. We hope you will also provide your comments in a formal manner through this submission email and the website as suggested below. Please direct any questions about the process to nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov; we look forward to hearing from you. Directions for Submissions Please submit comments electronically to: Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov Submission due date: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:00pm (EST) The documents attached below can be used as a template for submitting comments. We request that you submit your comments in the template format, but will accept comments in other formats. Please feel free to respond to as many or as few of the questions as you like. Please provide your name and affiliation in the header of your comments. The committee may post the comments, including any personal identifying information you provide (street or e-mail addresses, or phone numbers) it receives on its website. If you would like your personal identifying information withheld, please indicate that. The comment period will close on Friday, May 24, 2013. Please find the submission documents below and the link to the discussion draft, summaries and questions here <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussiondraft-of-comprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> . From: Hogle, Jessica <j8h1@pge.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:48 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:RE: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback in meetings and via this process.

I cannot locate the template for comment submissions in the email or website. Would you please resend the template document? Thank you, Jessica From: feedback, nwaste (Energy) [mailto:nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:42 AM To: feedback, nwaste (Energy) Subject: feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Dear Colleagues, On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussion-draft-ofcomprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. By now we hope you have heard that the senators are seeking comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators have posed eight questions on which they request comments. Please view this email as thanks for already having taken time to discuss your perspectives on the bill with the Senators and staff. We hope you will also provide your comments in a formal manner through this submission email and the website as suggested below. Please direct any questions about the process to nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov <mailto:nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov> ; we look forward to hearing from you. Directions for Submissions Please submit comments electronically to: Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov Submission due date: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:00pm (EST) The documents attached below can be used as a template for submitting comments. We request that you submit your comments in the template format, but will accept comments in other formats. Please feel free to respond to as many or as few of the questions as you like. Please provide your name and affiliation in the header of your comments. The committee may post the comments, including any personal identifying information you provide (street or e-mail addresses, or phone numbers) it receives on its website. If you would like your personal identifying information withheld, please indicate that.

The comment period will close on Friday, May 24, 2013. Please find the submission documents below and the link to the discussion draft, summaries and questions here <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussiondraft-of-comprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> . ________________________________ PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/ ________________________________ From: feedback, nwaste (Energy) Sent: To: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:42 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:feedback on the Nuclear Waste Act of 2013 Dear Colleagues, On April 25, 2013, Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski released a draft bill <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussion-draft-ofcomprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> to create a sustainable, participatory process for managing nuclear waste. By now we hope you have heard that the senators are seeking comments and suggestions on the draft bill, as well as on the alternative language for siting an interim storage facility proposed by Senators Alexander and Feinstein. In addition, the senators have posed eight questions on which they request comments. Please view this email as thanks for already having taken time to discuss your perspectives on the bill with the Senators and staff. We hope you will also provide your comments in a formal manner through this submission email and the website as suggested below. Please direct any questions about the process to nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov; we look forward to hearing from you. Directions for Submissions Please submit comments electronically to: Nwaste_feedback@energy.senate.gov Submission due date: Friday, May 24, 2013 at 5:00pm (EST) The documents attached below can be used as a template for submitting comments. We request that you submit your comments in the template format, but will accept comments in other formats. Please feel free to respond to as many or as few of the questions as you like. Please provide your name and affiliation in the header of your comments.

The committee may post the comments, including any personal identifying information you provide (street or e-mail addresses, or phone numbers) it receives on its website. If you would like your personal identifying information withheld, please indicate that. The comment period will close on Friday, May 24, 2013. Please find the submission documents below and the link to the discussion draft, summaries and questions here <http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/4/senators-release-discussiondraft-of-comprehensive-nuclear-waste-legislation> . From: jo shaw <jo.shaw@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:35 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear Waste Feedback Attachments: Executive Summary - Jo Shaw - Concerned Citizen.docx

Please DO NOT EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE THE RISK of deadly nuclear waste by transporting it to interim storage sites from which it has to be removed a second time and transported to permanent dumpsites. This is: CATASTROPHE IN THE MAKING 101. Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) <http://ieer.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2010/03/HOSS_PRINCIPLES_3-23-10x.pdf> makes a lot more sense, but would require significant upgrades to the safety, security, and environmental protections associated with dry cask storage: safeguards against accidents <http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreactorstorage/drycaskfactsheet07152004.pdf> and natural disasters, concealment, distancing between casks, fortification against attacks, and quality assurance on cask design and fabrication <http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/atreactorstorage/shiranialleg04.htm> to ensure they will last not decades <http://www.beyondnuclear.org/radioactive-wastewhatsnew/2013/4/28/agency-warns-high-level-nuke-waste-casks-deteriorating-alrea.html> , but centuries without leaking radioactivity into the environment. Immeasurably dangerous and expensive, nuclear energy submits humans and all other living things to contamination and an unacceptable threat. Making a commitment to secure permanent repositories for nuclear waste is crucial to protecting the health of our lands, waterways, air, economy and future generations. Going forward, we must engineer a nuclear exit and an end to the production of nuclear waste; all nuclear reactors no matter how "small" will produce deadly waste. No other technology can, in such short time, create such "long-lasting" catastrophes. Radioactive contamination is the price we are paying caused by a nuclear power industry that has been uncontrolled. Respectfully,

Jo Shaw From: Helen Hays <hlhays@ccgmail.net> Sent: To: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:05 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:parking lot dumps for nuclear waste I oppose parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste, and the vulnerable and risky irradiated nuclear fuel shipments they would send out onto our highways, railroads and waterways. These lot dumps would, in effect, be a Mobile Chernobyl. Thank you for your consideration of this communication. Helen Hays hlhays@ccwebster.net Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter. From: Karl J Volk <karljvolk@gmail.com> Sent: To: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:58 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:please do the right thing not the politcal smear job Submitters Name/Affiliation:Karl J. Volk Contact: Email:karljvolk@gmail.com Phone:845-345-9484 Please provide an executive summary of your response(s), and save as Executive_Summary_NAME_AFFILIATION. Feel free to delete these instructions; then please do not exceed the remainder of this page.We are not doing a good job of safeguarding atomic waste We need HOSS NOW we must do better we can.t have nuclear wasrw sent back and forth across the country over and over . we need on site safe storage AND NOT ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS That would be the height of racial discrimination and utterly unacceptable. Karl J. Volk From: Sewell, Michael <Michael.Sewell@pgnmail.com>

Sent: To:

Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:15 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Duke Energy comments on discussion draft of the Nuclear Waste Administration Act Attachments: 2013-04 Comments for Congress on Wyden et al Discussion Draft r3 (LSN)....docx

Attached please find Duke Energys comments on the draft bill. Do not hesitate to contact us with questions or requests for clarification. Thank you, Mike Sewell Duke Energy 202.331.8090 michael.sewell@duke-energy.com From: Bobvanden@aol.com Sent: To: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:56 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Addendum to Comments on Draft Nuclear Waste Bill Attachments: Question2_Vandenbosch_ Professor Emeritus.doc

Attached is a corrected copy of my comments on Question 2 of my comments on Draft Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013. Robert Vandenbosch Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Washington 6233 52nd Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115 206 523 4311 bobvanden@aol.com From: Bobvanden@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 11:52 AM

To:

feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Draft Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 Attachments: Executive_Summary_Vandenbosch_Professor Emeritus Chemistry.doc; FormQ2_NAME_AFFILIATION.doc; Question1_Vandenbosch_Professor_Emiritus_Chemistry.doc; Question3_Vandenbosch_Professor Emeritus Chemistry.doc; Question4_Vandenbosch_Professor Emeritus Chemistry.doc; Question5_Vandenbosch_Professor Emeritus Chemistry.doc; Question6_Vandenbosch_Professor Emeritus Chemistry.doc; Question7_Vandenbosch_Professor Emeritus Chemistry.doc; Question8_Vandenbosch_Professor Emeritus Chemistry.doc Attached in your suggested format are my comments on Draft Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013. Robert Vandenbosch Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Washington 6233 52nd Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115 206 523 4311 bobvanden@aol.com From: Dennis Collins <djcollinsiv@gmail.com> Sent: To: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:32 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Dennis Collins, Northern Illinois Resident I admittedly oppose storing nuclear waste in the Northern Illinois Region. I have concerns about safety, over the long term as well as short term, of the proposed storage facility. Both transportation as well as storage pose a significant risk to both the residents and the agricultural lifeline that supports this region. No Nuclear Storage in Northern Illinois. Dennis Collins From: Daniel Taccarello <daniel.taccarello@enea.it> Sent: To: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 3:07 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 Request for Feedback

Attachments:

QUESTION4_TACCARELLO_ENEA-ITALY.doc

Dear Senators Wyden, Alexander, Feinstein, and Murkowski, I wish to compliment you for putting together a new siting and consensus( http://1.usa.gov/10Z5Mpz )approval process - namely Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013 covering a pilot, a second spent fuel temporary storage and a final disposal facility or repository to be built within the deadlines that have been recently set by the current Obama Administration placing the target opening date for the the high level waste repository in fiscal year 2048. I do hope you succeed in pushing the Act forward because at present language in your draft Act sounds quite approximative to me especially where you refer to site-specific research or characterization. The same wording is used for both a temporary storage facility away from nuclear power stations and a HLW repository. Given the general meaning of "site-specific research" mentioned in your Question4 I suggest you clarify or re-word the paragraph lest many may take to estrange themselves from the issue and many others to think moderate or profound knowledge of a site may suffice to be discussed at public hearings while it is common knowledge the issues at stake are contained in its PEIS and later on in its FEIS. In a nutshell people will want to know which credible or conservative scenarios have been evaluated in the long term and against which which releases have been calculated after having modeled the site's

geologic behavior in a reliable computer program.(Title 10: Energy PART 60DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES Subpart ETechnical Criteria 60.113 Performance of particular barriers after permanent closure.) Long term performance assessments are obviously not required for temporary storage facilities which are designed with much shorter design lives. Please find hereto attached my comment to Dr. James Conca's article "A New Authority for Nuclear Waste" published on www.forbes.com a week agohttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/04/30/a-new-authority-for-nuclear-waste/ integrally transcribed onto your Question4 template. with respect, Daniel Taccarello ================================================== MESSAGGIO ISTITUZIONALE ================================================== INSIEME PER UNA GRANDE IMPRESA Destina il 5 per 1000 allENEA per ricostruire Citt della Scienza Utilizzeremo il tuo contributo e le nostre competenze tecnico scientifiche per progetti di divulgazione scientifica con Citt della Scienza. Il nostro codice fiscale 01320740580 Per maggiori informazioni: www.enea.it From: sthistle <sthistle@consolidated.net> Sent: To: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:51 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Comment on nuclear waste management legislation Attachments: Message 18.eml

Please find my comments attached. Thank you. "'Who am I? I am one loved by Christ.' Herein lies the foundation of the true self." -Thomas Merton/Brennan Manning From: Peter Paul Heilemann <peter.heilemann@wayne.edu> Sent: To: Monday, May 06, 2013 6:57 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Wyden, Murkowski, Feinstein, Alexander proposed legislation on nuclear waste I urge you to oppose the legislation proposed by Senators Murkowski, Wyden, Feinstein, and Alexander for interim storage of nuclear waste. According to Beyond Nuclear, a reliable source, the proposal does not establish a strong linkage between consolidated interim storage and permanent disposal of wastes. Furthermore, it advises that the risk of de facto permanent parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste is unacceptable. Rushing into Mobile Chernobyl shipments, and playing a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways, makes no sense and takes unnecessary risks. Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) should be required instead, as a common sense interim alternative to this bill's bad ideas. It should be pointed out that the human toll of nuclear power accidents is probably much greater than that reported in prominent American media. Several responsible sources have placed the toll, in terms of shortened lives, from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the tens and even hundreds of thousands. Peter Heilemann Detroit, Michigan ba5792@wayne.edu From: Jane Gill <jgill12@comcast.net> Sent: To: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:55 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear Storage It is a very dangerous idea to move this nuclear material around for temporary storage. We need to develop alternative SAFE methods for our

energy needs!! susan Gill From: Leary, Kevin D <kevin.leary@rl.doe.gov> Sent: To: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:02 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:RE: Executive Summary Kevin Leary US DOE Submitters Name/Affiliation: Kevin D. Leary- US Dept. of Energy (however, I did my thesis at University of Nevada, Reno and worked at Desert Research Institute. I did the first physical groundwater recharge model for Yucca Mountain. Contact: 509-373-7285 Email: kevin.leary@rl.doe.gov Phone: 509-373-7285 Executive Summary: First and foremost, I am writing you as an independent citizen and not as a US DOE employee. I did not read any of the summary documents, however, I have heard a summary of the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. At the time I did my research on Yucca Mountain, the State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office funded my research project and I had nothing to do with DOE. My funding was provided as a result of the State of Nevada litigating US DOE allowing the State of Nevada to perform independent research on Yucca Mountain. I completed my MS thesis (in Hydrogeology/Hydrology) in 1990 at the University of Nevada, Reno. I did one of the first physical groundwater recharge models for Yucca Mountain. In regards to Yucca Mountain being a suitable repository, I think it is technically sound. However, there are some concerns focused around future tectonic and volcanic activity and the impacts these natural events could have on the proposed repository location. Future natural catastrophic events are extremely difficult to predict, therefore, I have an alternate proposal. With this being said, an alternate location would be nearby Area 3 on the Nevada Test Site. It is an ideal location for a repository for several reasons including the following: 1600 feet of zeolite-laden alluvium over first encountered permanent groundwater (note: zeolite clays have a very strong adsorptive capacity for most radionuclides except the actinides); based on the hydraulic characteristics and current conditions, travel time to groundwater is in excess of 500,000 years Based upon groundwater recharge studies (e.g., using the Cl-36 isotope), there hasnt been recharge to the groundwater in over 10,000 years

 The site is extremely arid-6.4 inches of average annual precipitation (and a potential evapotranspiration [PET] of approximately 64 inches) The site is currently controlled by the US Dept. of Energy so there is no public access The site subsurface has already been contaminated by past underground nuclear testing

Since the since is in a large alluvial basin, fractured hard-rock and tectonic movement are of minor concerns. If a large earthquake were to occur, the zeolite-rich alluvium should envelope the nuclear waste. Concerns for future volcanic activity should be minimum. Groundwater movement is quite slow Distance to the nearest large populated Area (i.e., Las Vegas) is over 90 miles

To make the proposal more palatable to the public, there should be a grass-roots public outreach to dispel all of the myths surrounding the hazards of such a repository (e.g., a description of surrounding environment in which the waste would be deposited such as the information above) and the relative risks from transportation (as compared to other transportation risks that the community is faced with on a daily basis-e.g., tank cars full of chlorine gas; cyanide pellets used for gold mining in Northern Nevada, etc.). The federal government should offer-up financial assistance to the State of Nevada such as 100s of millions of dollars each year for higher education, infrastructure, parks and recreation, etc. I think this proposal has both technical and political merit. Please feel free to contact me regarding this high-level proposal. Kevin D. Leary Hydrogeologist/Hydrologist and Certified Professional Soil Scientist Tech Lead on: Seismic, Meterlogical, and Site Environmental Monitoring; Borrow Source Materials; NRDWL/SWL Closure; Engineered Surface Barriers; and NRDA Restoration TWG U.S. Dept. Of Energy/Richland Operations Office Federal Bldg; 825 Jadwin-Room 412 Richland, WA 99352 Office: (509)-373-7285 (p); (509)-376-0306 (fax) kevin.leary@rl.doe.gov The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Sir Edmund Burke If you do the same thing over and over again, you cannot expect a different outcome. Albert Einstein

From: Andrew Gold <rosemount@newmexico.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:56 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:<no subject> To Senate Energy sub-committee members: I urge you to oppose de-linking "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal. Moving massive amounts of high level radioactive waster across our highway and rail systems to INTERIM storage facilities is an unwarranted and highly dangerous temporary step towards proper disposal. It will require moving these same wastes again and so will risk more devastating accidents and/or terrorists targeted attacks. Instead we should be putting into place sound plans for long-term disposal which will require one shipment from each of the current temporary sites. Thank yu for your consideration. Andrew Gold;Santa Fe, NM From: Shoshannah Benmosch <biophilial@verizon.net> Sent: To: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:36 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:No to high costs and increased health risks from contamination and weapons proliferation if HLR waste storage is centralized. "The proposal in this current draft would invite not only a serious nuclear weapons proliferation risk, but also a risk of widespread radioactive contamination of the environment downwind and downstream of existing sites, along transport routes and at volume unrestricted "interim" dumpsites. It would also cost taxpayers and/or ratepayers many tens of billions of dollars." Why is HOSS not considered? Surely its engineering problems can be more cost effectively remedied for in-situ dry-cask permanent storage where the geology permits or for safer transport from other less geologically stable sites to a permanent repository. From: Jeannie Pollak <jeannie22@roadrunner.com> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 12:33 PM

To:

feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Hardened On-Site Nuclear Waste Storage For the second year in a row, U.S. Senators have introduced the latest Mobile Chernobyl bill on the eve of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe anniversary. Please use Hardened On-Site Storage as a common sense alternative to this bad proposal. Please do NOT put my children at risk with this bad proposal. We need to stop making nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is a bad energy alternative. Jeannie Pollak Oxnard, CA 93036-6210 From: Richard Crozier <riccrozier@embarqmail.com> Sent: To: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:15 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:mobile Chernobyls Harden sites for storage of nuclear materials. Don't endanger us any morethan you already have! No nukes! Shut down all Fukushimas! From: Shoshannah Benmosch <biophilial@verizon.net> Sent: To: Saturday, May 04, 2013 4:16 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Current draft proposal for high-level radioactive waste management: No thank you! "This proposal would launch shipments of high-level radioactive waste onto the roads, rails, and waterways in unprecedented numbers, bound for "consolidated interim storage sites," from which they would have to be removed someday, to permanent dumpsites. Unless, that is, they never are transferred -- which would lead to de facto permanent surface storage, parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste." Why is HOSS not considered? Surely its engineering problems can be more cost effectively remedied for in-situ dry-cask permanent storage where the geology permits and safer transport from other sites. From: des72ee@q.com Sent: To: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:09 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Two Cents worth I completely support bringing Nuclear waste into Idaho to be housed at locations within the INL. Whether it is interim or long term it would be an overall benefit to Southeastern Idaho and it is well documented to be a safe location, with no ill effect to the environment. We need to re-evaluate the 1995 Settlement Agreement and stop moving the waste.

I have previously worked for the ICP (Idaho Cleanup Project) and am currently working at the Naval Reactors Facility. I am well aware or concerns, both legitimate and those that have no validity, but are fear based. We need to move forward and preserve our position and the economic future of the area. Sincerely, Desiree Lowney From: shelhoro@gmail.com on behalf of Shel Horowitz <shel@principledprofit.com> Sent: To: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:58 AM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Current draft is a BAD bill The best solution for storing high-level rad waste is to stop generating it in the first place. Until we have technology (and communications systems to people who might not even recognize English writing or a contemporary computer file) that can safely and flawlessly isolate these highly toxic, corrosive, and radioactive materials from the environment for at least 100,000 years (250,000 would be safer), we have no business generating them. We should use the Precautionary Principle and stop generating this waste. In the meantime, we do need to address long-term storage of the waste already generated. Hardened on-site cask storage, while far from perect, is a far better idea than the mobile "solution." I am the author of eight books including Nuclear Lessons. _________________________________________________ Shel Horowitz - copywriter, marketing consultant, author, speaker Affordable, ethical, effective marketing materials and strategies "Helping you find the sweet spot of green AND profitable" Sign the Business Ethics Pledge - Help Change the World

<http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org> http://www.greenandprofitable.com / http://www.frugalmarketing.com mailto:shel@greenandprofitable.com * 413-586-2388 Twitter: @ShelHorowitz Award-winning author: Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green Blog on GreenBusiness/Marketing/Politics/Ethics: http://greenandprofitable.com/shels-blog/ _________________________________________________ From: Jean Beck <jeanb2020@yahoo.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:46 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

I urge you to reject any plans to transport nuclear waste via trucks across the USA. Nuclear energy is far from green, far from safe. I oppose nuclear energy and its waste products. Jean Beck Lynnwood, WA From: Dave Morrison <docdave100@msn.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:03 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy); cindy@beyondnuclear.org

Subject:FW: [CTSOS] Graphene Newest Feat: Cleaning Up Radioactive Water Please consider this as a start to a solution... To: no-new-nukes-yall@yahoogroups.com; ctsos@yahoogroups.com; ETList@yahoogroups.com From: remyc@prodigy.net Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:01:20 -0500 Subject: [CTSOS] Graphene Newest Feat: Cleaning Up Radioactive Water http://earthtechling.com/2013/01/graphenes-newest-feat-cleaning-up-radioactive-water <http://earthtechling.com/2013/01/graphenes-newest-feat-cleaning-up-radioactive-water>

Graphenes Newest Feat: Cleaning Up Radioactive Water <http://earthtechling.com/2013/01/graphenes-newest-feat-cleaning-up-radioactive-water/> January 14th, 2013 by Beth Buczynski <http://earthtechling.com/author/beth/> Its probably been a while since youve thought about the Fukushima <http://earthtechling.com/2012/12/powerful-compact-robot-developed-for-fukushima-clean-up/> nuclear disaster that rocked Japan, and international headlines, in 2011. Despite the fact that the media have moved on, the arduous process of cleaning up and decontaminating the area is a daily reality for the Japanese. One of Fukushimas worst catastrophes was the direct result of the nuclear plant being built so close to the coastline. The idea of contamination inside a nuclear facility is terrifying enough, without the thought that its running directly into the ocean we all share. New research <http://www.gizmag.com/graphene-oxide-radioactive-water/25767/> out of Houstons Rice University and Lomonosov Moscow State University may have discovered a way graphene, that miraculous substance, can reverse even this environmental disaster. In case youre not familiar, graphene <http://www.earthtechling.com/tag/graphene/> is a substance made of pure carbon, with atoms arranged in a regular hexagonal pattern similar to graphite, but in a one-atom thick sheet. It is very light, with a 1 square meter sheet weighing only 0.77 milligrams. Its been suggested that this material could be the key to efficient desalinization, flexible semi-conductors, and better electronics <http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/01/we-geek-out-over-graphenediscovery/> . And now, nuclear waste clean-up. According to researchers at the aforementioned Universities, when flakes of graphene oxide are added to contaminated water, it causes the radionuclides to condense into clumps. Those clumps can then be separated and disposed of. The researchers focused on removing radioactive isotopes of the actinides and lanthanides the 30 rare earth elements in the periodic table from liquids, rather than solids or gases. Graphene oxide introduced to simulated wastes coagulated within minutes, quickly clumping the worst toxins, said <http://news.rice.edu/2013/01/08/another-tiny-miracle-graphene-oxide-soaks-upradioactive-waste-2/> chemist Stepan Kalmykov. The process worked across a range of pH values. In addition to possibly assisting in decontamination efforts at Fukushima, the researchers say this graphene-based process could also help the natural gas industry <http://www.earthtechling.com/tag/natural-gas/> clean up its act. When groundwater comes out of a well and its radioactive above a certain level, they cant put it back into the ground, said chemist James Tour. Its too hot. Companies have to ship contaminated water to repository sites around the country at very large expense. The ability to quickly filter out contaminants on-site would save a great deal of money. __._,_.___

Reply via web post <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTSOS/post%3b_ylc=X3oDMTJxNG9oYXVqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdyc ElkAzI5ODg1ODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MTc3BG1zZ0lkAzEyMzI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3R pbWUDMTM1ODQ2NTA5MQ--?act=reply&messageNum=12328> Reply to sender <mailto:remyc@prodigy.net?subject=Re%3A%20Graphene%20Newest%20Feat%3A%20Cleaning%20Up %20Radioactive%20Water> Reply to group <mailto:CTSOS@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Graphene%20Newest%20Feat%3A%20Cleaning %20Up%20Radioactive%20Water> Start a New Topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTSOS/post%3b_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnZzODNhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycE lkAzI5ODg1ODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MTc3BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODQ 2NTA5MQ--> Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTSOS/message/12328%3b_ylc=X3oDMTM2NzkxM2FqBF9TAzk3MzU 5NzE0BGdycElkAzI5ODg1ODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MTc3BG1zZ0lkAzEyMzI4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA 3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODQ2NTA5MQR0cGNJZAMxMjMyOA--> (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CTSOS%3b_ylc=X3oDMTJlcHMwYmg5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAz I5ODg1ODMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY0MTc3BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1ODQ2NT A5MQ--> The CTSOS List is the official list serv and Yahoo Group for the Greenburbs website: http://www.greenburbs.com Everything Solar & Green in Fairfield County From: neil stecker <neile1@frontiernet.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 6:03 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:nuclear fuel Neil Stecker neile1@frontiernet.net CUSTOM CREATIONS WOODWORKS 49739 153RD Place

Tamarack, MN 55787 218-426-4067 TrueNortwoods.com http://customcreationswoodworking.wordpress.com/ DEAR PERSONS, Your idea to waste time and money moving what should never been created, is so asinine, as to be laughable! do you own a railroad, trucking, storage facility? BUILD Any, All, cooling tanks needed for LONG TERM STORAGE, WHERE CREATED! Employ local people to build storage tanks, store safely as long as it is radioactive! 100 Million Years. Or, send it to you and your investors can store it awhile, in your basements!?! Germany, is headed for 80% renewables and ending NUCLEAR POWER/ BOMBS! I would be available to consult, for Half the normal costs. Contacts above. Sincerely, nes From: Donna Selquist <dselquist@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:30 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Transporting nuclear material and waste I want to urge you to block a rush into Mobile Chernobyl risks merely to play a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways. Please consult with Chairman Wyden and other members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and tell them not to play this shell game with nuclear material. Thank you. From: Marti Olesen <molesen12@gmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:02 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Do not support mobile Chernobyls. Support HOSS instead

We urge all Senators to oppose de-linking "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal. We Urge all of you to block a rush into Mobile Chernobyl risks merely to play a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways. Weigh in with Chairman Wyden and other members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. Let them know Americans do not support this foolish action that will easily expose our entire nation to the blights of nuclear disaster if even one train or truck is sabotaged or has an accident. Confine the damage to the areas where it already exists and work on stabilizing and decontaminating those sites instead. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Larry Olesen Ponca, ARFrom: Laura M. Ohanian <lmo@efn.org> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 5:01 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:re: "Discussion Draft" of proposed legislation on high-level radioactive waste management Laura M. Ohanian Eugene, OR 97401 lmo@efn.org 541-342-7786 To whom it may concern: No Mobile Chernobyls! Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) makes a lot more sense than this bad bill. HOSS calls for emptying vulnerable high-level radioactive waste storage pools into on-site dry cask storage, but would require significant upgrades to the safety, security, and environmental protections associated with dry cask storage: safeguards against accidents and natural disasters; concealment, distancing between casks, and fortification against attacks; and quality assurance on cask design and fabrication to ensure they will last not decades but centuries, without leaking radioactivity into the environment. Nearly 200 environmental groups, representing all 50 states, have endorsed HOSS, calling for it for well over a decade now. I urge that a strong linkage between "consolidated interim storage" and permanent disposal be reestablished in this proposed legislation. The risk of de facto permanent parking lot dumps for high-level radioactive waste is unacceptable! Rushing into Mobile Chernobyl shipments, and playing a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways, makes no sense and takes unnecessary risks for

everyone. I urge that Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) be required instead, as a commonsense interim alternative to this bill's bad ideas. And in the meantime, since it's obvious that we still don't have a clue as to how to deal with nuclear waste, we certainly should not be creating any more -- I support an immediate cessation of the production and use of nuclear anything, if you care about the kind of world you want to leave to our kids and grandkids. Thank you, Laura M. Ohanian From: Gordon Howard <fortescu@optonline.net> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 4:36 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear Waste (Spent Rods---Garbage) I have to ask my self why are you proposing this BILL ??? Rushing into high-level radioactive waste shipments on the roads, rails, and waterways makes no sense. it needs to be contained by Hardened on Site Storage, the question is who pays for it to happen ??? Is that your motive ??? What planet do you live on this could affect your family's well being ??? Gordon Howard 631-878-1716 From: Allison Ostrer <aostrer@hotmail.com> Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:57 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:No Mobile Chernobyls on our roads Dear Senator Wyden, I am opposed to shipping dangerous nuclear waste on our highways. Rushing into "Mobile Chernobyl" shipments and playing a radioactive waste shell game on the roads, rails, and waterways, makes no sense and takes unnecessary risks. Instead Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) be required as a common sense interim alternative to this bill's bad ideas. I hope you will consider my thoughts and those of all Americans who fear for our safety from nuclear waste. Sincerely,

Allison Ostrer Seattle, WA From: mjl2010environmental@juno.com Sent: To: Friday, May 03, 2013 2:25 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Nuclear Waste Disposal Sir/Ma'am, I have been folowing nuclear waste disposal for some time. I am not sure if a new federal agency is needed for this though. However if you do this, please mirror at least CFR's 10, 29, 40 and 49 and all relevent statuatory requirements for this. Michaeol Luzzo 509-42--0982 mjl2010environemental@juno.com From: Jane Darden-Young <connieyoung@mac.com> Sent: To: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 7:07 PM feedback, nwaste (Energy)

Subject:Don't Waste Aiken SC To the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: Don't Waste Aiken is a grass roots cross section of our community that wants to make sure our voices are heard. We represent tax paying citizens, college students,grandparents, Democrats, Republicans, and we are committed to not allowing commercial spent nuclear fuel and reprocessing to come to the SRS or South Carolina. We do not feel that the SRS should continue to be a dumping ground for the World and we want the legacy nuclear weapons waste that is just like the stuff at Hanford to be cleaned up before it kills us! There has never been a real plan for the nuclear industry's waste disposal site unless by gun point... which should indicate to you, elected officials, that the citizens of the US just don't want that kind of energy here. We ask that the government quit subsidizing the nuclear industry with our tax payer dollars and we ask that our elected officials commit to real renewable and clean energy as a focus for your committee. Most importantly...Don't Waste Aiken- citizen's saying no to 70,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel coming to the SRS and South Carolina! www.dontwasteaiken.com

Sincerely, Jesse Colin Young and Connie Darden-Young...founders