ML23129A166
| ML23129A166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/2023 |
| From: | Cecilia Carson - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2022-0183, 87FR76219 02575 | |
| Download: ML23129A166 (1) | |
Text
file:///nrc.gov/...omments/NRC-2022-0183%20NEW/NRC-2022-0183%202023-04-05%2010-26-49_docs/NRC-2022-0183-DRAFT-2575.html[4/6/2023 1:45:29 PM]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: April 05, 2023 Received: March 10, 2023 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lf2-3yd8-lfpz Comments Due: March 13, 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-2022-0183-0248 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-2575 Comment on FR Doc # 2023-03668 Submitter Information Name: C.D. Carson Address:
Fort Worth, TX, 76101 Email:publius+gov@man-and-atom.info General Comment As a resident of Fort Worth, Texas, I benefit directly from the operation of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.
In my opinion, to remove 2200 megawatts of dependable, emissions-free, reasonably-priced electrical generation from the Texas grid, without some truly urgent cause, would be an act of deliberate injury to the public health and welfare. People would die. The scope of any Environmental Impact Statement relating to the renewal of the operating licenses for Comanche Peak must include the risks and harms of inadequate power supply, even of total grid collapse, in its scope.
My household did not lose power during the crisis of February 2021, which was a very good thing for my 98-year-old grandmother. Since then, we have repeatedly seen warnings from ERCOT, some of them during periods of fair weather and moderate demand, that there is inadequate generating capacity margin on the Texas grid, and curtailments have been undertaken to protect grid stability. This is contrary to the ethos of the central-station electric utility system, which is to supply power so dependably that large users will not feel the need to install their own supplies, and then leverage economies of scale to provide near-universal service at prices everyone can afford. The social benefit inherent in this model is immense, and one might reasonably say it is the foundation of our modern world.
The nuclear station, with a proven capability of supporting annual load factors near 90% for decades, is seen to possess the virtues of the central-station concept almost to an extreme degree. In comparison to fuel-burning stations, it shows a number of other advantages, beginning with freedom from the noxious air emissions which contribute substantially to the chronic air-quality non-attainment in North Texas. The transportation of coal, which ties up the rail networks locally and nationally, interfering with higher-value goods and passenger trains, SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Tam Tran, Antoinette Walker-Smith, Ted Smith, Mary Neely Comment (2575)
Publication Date: 12/13/2022 Citation: 87 FR 76219
file:///nrc.gov/...omments/NRC-2022-0183%20NEW/NRC-2022-0183%202023-04-05%2010-26-49_docs/NRC-2022-0183-DRAFT-2575.html[4/6/2023 1:45:29 PM]
and indirectly exacerbating road congestion and vehicular pollution ; the competition between industry, home heating, and power generation for pipeline gas ; and the transport and disposal of those waste products of combustion which are not discharged directly into the air, are all avoided by the nuclear central station.
We should not ignore that (according to the "Wall Street Journal" this week) industry leaders believe the production of oil and gas from hydro-fracking of shale in this country is nearing its peak. It is this cheap gas which has been the silent partner in the large wind and solar installations which their advocates claim make atomic power irrelevant. Future production will come at a continually rising cost, and utilities which have closed their nuclear plants will be squeezed more and more.
I deeply regret that I have not attended the public hearings so far held in the course of this license renewal process. Just as much, however, I regret that these hearings are occasions "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" owing to the participation of people who have no intention of contributing to the process of informed decision-making in a democratic society, but instead wish (for whatever reason) to obstruct the civil uses of atomic energy any way they can.
Attached, as a matter of general interest, is a scan of a leaflet in my possession describing the Comanche Peak plant. It is remarkable that the safety record mentioned now covers, not 700, but literally thousands of reactor-years of operations.
Attachments comanche_00 comanche_01