|
7/28/07
I-3
The Third Infantry Division Highway
Letter to Sen. Johnny Isakson
1/12/07
Stop I-3 Board
Comments, Questions Nuclear Complex 2030 Environmental Impact Statement
11/7/05
A Letter from
Bob Massey to the Cherokee County, N.C. Commissioners
10/31/05
Mountain High Hikers
Letter to Governor Perdue
8/05
Interstate 3 Information
Letter to Clay County Officials
7/26/05
Everybody's Mountains:
Georgia Wildlife Federation Opposes I-3
Letter to Representaive Norwood
|
Stop
I-3 Board Comments, Questions Nuclear Complex 2030 Environmental
Impact Statement
Letter to Theodore A. Wyka, Complex
2030 SEIS Document Manager,
from the Stop I-3 Coalition
Stop Interstate 3 Coalition
C/o John M. Clarke, Board Member
Hayesville, NC 28904
January 12, 2007
Mr Theodore A. Wyka
Complex 2030 SEIS Document Manager
Office of Transformation, US Dept of Energy, NA-10.1
1000 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20585
Re: EIS Comment, Complex 2030
Dear Mr Wyka:
The Stop I-3 Coalition would like to make the following
points and pose the following questions regarding the Department
of Energy/ National Nuclear Security Administration plans
for Complex 2030, which involves significantly increasing
nuclear weapons activities at Oak Ridge, TN and Savannah
River Site, SC, with accompanying nuclear materials transport
on the highways of the Southeast region. This is the final
version of our comment for the Complex 2030 EIS scoping phase
and should replace the preliminary statement we filed at
Oak Ridge, Tennessee on Nov 13, 2006.
The Stop I-3 Coalition was formed in 2005 in response to
the inclusion in the 2005 Highway Bill (“SAFETEA-LU
sec 1927”), of a study of a proposed highway variously
known as Interstate 3 or The Third Infantry Division Highway.
It would connect Savannah, Augusta, and Knoxville with an
interstate highway routed through North Georgia, possibly
South Carolina, Western North Carolina, and East Tennessee.
The mission of the Stop I-3 Coalition is to preserve the
integrity of our communities, mountains, lakes, streams,
and forests by preventing the construction of I-3 or any
similar highway in the Southern Appalachian and Piedmont
Region.
Our interest in nuclear matters stems from the fact that
the proposed highway would connect the Y-12 Plant at Oak
Ridge with the Savannah River Site in the Augusta area and
the Port of Savannah. We have noted with concern that the
I-3 proposal coincides with a considerable effort on the
part of the government and a number of utility companies
to increase nuclear weapons programs and nuclear power activities,
including waste reprocessing, and the concentration of these
activities in the Southeast. We are convinced that should
I-3 ever be built it would become a convenient route for
the traffic in radioactive materials which would arise from
Complex 2030 and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, as
well as expected routing of nuclear wastes and plutonium
through the area. This is not acceptable to us or to the
coalition of citizens and groups we represent (please see
http://www.stopi-3.org/members.html for a list of our supporting
organizations). As a coalition, we are not an antinuclear
group, but it has been our policy since our formation to
research issues related to the possible construction of Interstate
3, including nuclear transport activities in the region.
As our comment on the Complex 2030 Environmental Impact
Statement, we offer the following questions and comments.
We have also invited those on our mailing list to submit
individual comments of their own.
Has the Dept of Energy or its contractors been a party to
the proposal to build Interstate 3? Are there any classified
or unclassified documents in existence where DOE or NNSA
has included I-3 in its planning for nuclear transport?
Would the nuclear transport necessitated by Complex 2030
take place on Interstate 3 if it is ever built? What other
routes would be taken by trucks hauling uranium, plutonium,
and tritium through the region? Will there be international
traffic in these materials through the Port of Savannah as
part of Complex 2030 or other DOE programs? What volume (how
many tons, how many truckloads or rail car loads) of radioactive
cargo would be generated by the implementation of Complex
2030? Will detailed information on the nuclear transport
necessitated by Complex 2030 be included in the EIS?
What possible guarantees can the DOE or NNSA offer that
all this nuclear transport could be done safely? Would the
trucks be marked as containing radioactive cargo? Would local
law enforcement and emergency personnel be notified of the
shipments? Would the DOE and NNSA be capable of conducting
cleanup, public safety operations, or environmental damage
containment in the event of a spill, accident, or sabotage?
What hospitals along the route would be capable of administering
treatment to residents and travelers who may be exposed to
radiation?
We understand that even when no notable incidents occur,
the process of nuclear materials transport exposes drivers
and the public to varying levels of radiation exposure. In
the event of a spill or accident, this exposure could become
catastrophic, causing thousands of deaths and cancers and
potentially rendering uninhabitable large tracts of land.
Will the EIS take into account the risk of this kind of event
occurring?
Should not the total picture of nuclear transport and its
attendant hazards be included in the EIS for Complex 2030?
We submit that it should and we will not regard as complete
any EIS which ignores the impact of nuclear transport on
the environment and the people of our region. It is our hope
that the final EIS will address the questions raised above
and treat transport between facilities as an integral part
of the Complex 2030 proposals.
< Back
|
