ML23108A192
| ML23108A192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/2023 |
| From: | Hanratty L - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2022-0183, 87FR76219 01725 | |
| Download: ML23108A192 (1) | |
Text
file:///nrc.gov/...omments/NRC-2022-0183%20NEW/NRC-2022-0183%202023-04-05%2010-26-49_docs/NRC-2022-0183-DRAFT-1725.html[4/6/2023 1:19:31 PM]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: April 05, 2023 Received: January 25, 2023 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. ldc-fjte-wh5f Comments Due: January 30, 2023 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2022-0183 Vistra Operations Company LLC Comanche Peak Power Company LLC Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Comment On: NRC-2022-0183-0003 Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement; Vistra Operations Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Document: NRC-2022-0183-DRAFT-1725 Comment on FR Doc # 2022-27025 Submitter Information Name: Linda Hanratty Address:
Fort Worth, TX, 76109 Email:llswenard47@gmail.com Phone:8178005922 General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments Commanche Peak Extension NRC SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Tam Tran, Antoinette Walker-Smith, Ted Smith, Mary Neely Comment (1725)
Publication Date: 12/13/2022 Citation: 87 FR 76219
According to Google Maps I live approximately 40 miles from the Comanche Peak Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.
I was planning to attend one of the two public meetings on January 10, 2023, in Glen Rose, Texas, that was cancelled due to Covid-19 concerns, despite the apparent low incidence of Covid in Glen Rose. I listened to the January 17, 2023, online forum, but was unable to speak because I did not download Microsoft Teams on my computer. Apparently, this was a widespread problem. In addition, with less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for comment, it would have been impossible for the over 100 people at the meeting to speak. It should be noted that the elected officials in the area, all of whom spoke in favor of the application, were able to comment first.
As a stakeholder, my concerns are as follows:
What will the costs be to make sure the dam holding the radiated cooling water will last until at least 2053?
Will there be sufficient water to cool the plants through 2053, given increasing drought conditions in this area caused by climate change?
What repairs will be needed to ensure the reactors and associated boilers, pipes, etc. will last an additional 20 years, and what will be the cost?
Are there alternative renewable energy sources that would be cheaper, and not involve generating additional nuclear waste for which there is no permanent repository? These could include solar, wind or geothermal.
It is my understanding that most, if not all, of my concerns will not be addressed by the EIS. It is also my understanding that there will be no further hearings unless we can prove there is a problem with an EIS that has not yet been written. Nor are there any plans to extend the comment period beyond January 31, 2023.
I have seen no mention of this application in the Tarrant County newspapers, even though thousands of residents in this county are within the 50-mile radius of the plant. When Comanche Peak planning began in 1980, Tarrant County had 860,880 residents. As of July 1, 2021, the population had more than doubled to 2,126,477.
While only about 25 percent of Tarrant County is likely within 50 miles of the plant, that still represents over 500,000 people. Also not included are residents of Johnson and Somervell Counties within the 50-miles, where the population has also grown exponentially. A transparent process would ensure the population
within 50-miles of the plants would get adequate notification and have adequate time to respond. This process offers neither.
This request asks residents like me to accept risk without adequate assurance that all aspects of this request will ensure my safety and not burden me with unnecessarily and unreasonably higher electric costs and additional nuclear waste for which there is no permanent repository, all this when safe, affordable solar, wind, and geothermal alternatives are available at lower cost than extending the life of these plants. But, as previously stated, that is outside the scope of the NRC review. It is no wonder Americans are frustrated with their government.