ML24045A004
| ML24045A004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/2024 |
| From: | Goldsmith A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2020-0201, 89FR960 00003 | |
| Download: ML24045A004 (1) | |
Text
2/14/24, 6:26 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/7ffdb8bf-3f2a-4c8d-9072-740b841e9e54 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/7ffdb8bf-3f2a-4c8d-9072-740b841e9e54 1/2 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 2/14/24, 6:26 AM Received: February 06, 2024 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lsa-ji5f-ckjn Comments Due: February 22, 2024 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2020-0201 Virginia Electric and Power Company; Dominion Energy Virginia; North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Comment On: NRC-2020-0201-0008 Virginia Electric and Power Company; North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2; Draft Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2020-0201-DRAFT-0007 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-00147 Submitter Information Name: Aviv Goldsmith Address:
Spotsylvania, VA, 22551 Email:precursors@aol.com Phone:5405829600 General Comment My name is Aviv Goldsmith and I live within the 50 mile radius of the project. I am concerned about the project impacts and the lack of diligence in the analysis as was summarized in the DEIS (submittal 2 of 2).
Page 3-64 et. seq. compares impacts from license extension to that of a new reactor. However, I do not see anything stating that if the license extension occurs that the new reactor will be cancelled so both projects and resulting impacts could still occur. This presents bias in the comparative analysis.
The offshore wind impacts on page 3-67 et. al. are speculative and not in conformance with impacts documented in other approved FEIS for projects in the Atlantic.
The socioeconomic area of influence for section 3.10.2 et. al. should include Spotsylvania County. Its omission is a serious error.
Since population has increased tremendously since the original license and EIS, the impacts on transportation (3.1.51 et. al.), especially in the event of an emergency at the facility, are much larger than previously and should be fully mitigated.
With more than 2.5 million persons within the 50-mile area of concern, there is no way that the impacts from a severe accident could be SMALL as was stated on page 3-170. This radius, for example, includes many major government facilities and the I-95 corridor that could have major impacts to the regional and the nation from a severe accident.
SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Tam Tran, Ashley Waldron, Antoinette Walker-Smith Mary Neely Comment (3)
Publication Date:1/8/2024 Citation: 89 FR 960
2/14/24, 6:26 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/7ffdb8bf-3f2a-4c8d-9072-740b841e9e54 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/7ffdb8bf-3f2a-4c8d-9072-740b841e9e54 2/2 Certainly, the occurrence of seismic events and the regional population growth constitute new and significant information since the original EIS and merits much further study than provided on page 3-170 et. al.
It is irresponsible and unscientific to permit an early extension of the operating license before safe long-term solutions for nuclear waste disposal are in place and proven.