ML18206A034
| ML18206A034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 07/11/2018 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NRO/DLSE |
| NRC/NRO/DLSE | |
| References | |
| 83FR18554 | |
| Download: ML18206A034 (2) | |
Text
1 ClinchRiverESPEISCEm Resource From:
Joyce Cochran <cochransci@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 11, 2018 2:58 PM To:
ClinchRiverESPEIS
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket 52-047: Clinch River DEIS REALLY STUPID
& BAD: Nuclear Plants WITHOUT Evacuation Plans GOOD (sort of): Emergency Plans for ALL Nuc Plants BEST: No New Nuclear Plants
Dear NRC staff,
It's a concern. The TVA wants to decrease the emergency zone to two miles or less. The TVA is seeking an early site permit (ESP) to construct two or more reactors, with up to 800 megawatts (MW) of electricity generation capacity.
NRC issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for TVAs permit application on April 26, 2018. NRCs analysis is deeply flawed and biased toward approving this unnecessary, expensive, and counterproductive project.
NRC must reject TVAs proposal to dramatically reduce the Emergency Planning Zone from 10 miles to just 2 miles or less. The EPZ requirement defines the scope of evacuation plans and other emergency response measures must be in place in the case of a major release of radioactive material. There is no possible justification for reducing emergency planning requirements on the basis of reactor designs that have not even been approved.
The reality is that TVAs proposed SMR project is a thinly disguised subsidy to the nuclear power industry. TVA has no need to build more nuclear reactors, with a surplus of electricity and declining demand from its customers. The proposed project would be entirely uneconomical, with estimated costs 3-5 times more than the current cost of wind and solar power. Energy efficiency is yet more cost-effective.
NRC must consider the recent experience with other proposed new reactor projects, using untested new designs. South Carolina utilities abandoned building new reactors last year, but only after spending nearly a decade and $9 billion on them. South Carolina ratepayers are paying 18% of their electricity costs for partially built reactors that will never generate a watt of electricity. Had the utilities invested in solar, wind, and/or efficiency ten years ago, South Carolina would be saving money and reducing carbon emissions, with no radioactive waste.
These and other biases in the DEIS amount to promoting nuclear power over other energy sources. This is contrary to NRCs statutory mission to be a neutral regulator with the purpose of ensuring nuclear safety, not promoting nuclear power. NRC must withdraw the DEIS and perform a fair, accurate, objective analysis of TVAs site permit application, as well as the real alternatives of energy efficiency, wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources.
Dr. Joyce Cochran 411 15 Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94118 1111111111
Federal Register Notice:
83FR18554 Comment Number:
1714 Mail Envelope Properties (1598980761.887.1531335503966.JavaMail.tomcat)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Docket 52-047: Clinch River DEIS Sent Date:
7/11/2018 2:58:23 PM Received Date:
7/11/2018 2:58:25 PM From:
Joyce Cochran Created By:
cochransci@sbcglobal.net Recipients:
Post Office:
vweb44 Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2627 7/11/2018 2:58:25 PM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: