Concerns about the DGR project

Thank you for providing an opportunity to respond, although I consider the communication about and timeline for commentary inadequate. I have four major concerns about the proposed project. The first is that a project of this importance and potential effect should have a full, open and informed impact assessment that considers all people and ecosystems that will endure any impact. The second is that the transportation of the spent fuel must be included as part of that assessment because it includes inherent and related risks. The third is that the risks of the storage project should be borne by the organizations and jurisdictions that have benefitted from the nuclear power generation, not by ecosystems and people that live along distant transportation routes and watersheds. Fourth, while DGR might seem like the best available option, it is not a proven technology that we have a reason to trust over the million-year life of the toxins. I believe that there was inherent short-sightedness when nuclear power generation began without a plan for permanent storage or mitigation of waste. We should not be foisting that same short-sightedness on the seven generations that are included in the timeline of this project, nor on the untold future generations that will be affected while the fuel toxins are still active.