ML24054A017
| ML24054A017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/2024 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 89FR4631 | |
| Download: ML24054A017 (3) | |
Text
From:
Julie Mansfield-Wells <ja.gibson@att.net>
Sent:
Friday, February 23, 2024 3:46 AM To:
DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Diablo Canyon Scoping Comments
Dear Members of the NRC,
I am a resident of Los Osos, California, living within 10 miles of the power plant for the past 38 years. I have always been very concerned about the environmental impact of the plant and its continued production of highly radioactive waste for which there is no long term storage solution, and I am emphatically opposed to the license extension for another 20 years.
At the scoping meeting, we were asked the following questions:
"What about your community should the NRC consider in the EIS?"
"What local environmental issues should be addressed?" and "What other reasonable alternatives should be considered?"
I would like you to consider these crucial factors in making your decision:
There is enough evidence to show that extended operation of Diablo Canyon is not needed to keep the lights on. California now has more than 8,500 MW of energy storage capacity with more being added each year, plus up to 5,000 MW of demand response - more than sufficient to ensure grid reliability during extreme weather events.
Extended operation of Diablo Canyon is too costly. The California Public Utilities Commission has stated that complete costs are unknown but are expected to exceed
$6 billion. The cost burden would be spread to other non-PG&E ratepayers throughout the State. This is expected to exceed $500 for every family of four, but the costs and risks will be highest for the local community.
Keeping Diablo Canyon online will crowd out and slow down the development of alternatives (wind, solar, storage, efficiency, demand response). Because Diablo must operate 24/7, it limits uploading access to the grid by renewable resources. Why not install wind turbines on the hills above the DCNPP site and convert it to a renewable energy plant? That would provide local renewable energy jobs to replace those lost by decommissioning Diablo.
There are significant concerns about seismic safety. PG&E underestimates the risk of an earthquake-caused accident at Diablo Canyon and fails to consider recent data and analyses. There is evidence which shows that the two faults that run directly under the plant are vertical thrust faults, meaning they could cause much more ground motion than ever credited.
Unit 1s Reactor Pressure Vessel poses an unacceptable safety risk due to serious indications of embrittlement coupled with a lack of information to establish otherwise. Neither PG&E nor the NRC has taken any steps to assess the current condition of the pressure vessel, and PG&E failed to conduct the most recent testing that was due because they didn't have the proper tools. Extensive investigation has
revealed an unprecedented and persistent pattern of neglect by PG&E and NRC technical staff.
The Once-Through Cooling system at Diablo Canyon violates federal law. The facility circulates 2.5 billion gallons of seawater throughout its cooling system each day.
The water released back into the ocean is 20 degrees warmer. It annually sucks in and kills more than one billion fish in early life stages. The State Water Resources Control Board has allowed several waivers to the Clean Water Act by permitting the continued operation of Diablo Canyon. OTC continues to negatively impact the local marine environment.
After decades of failed policy, there exists no environmentally safe, just, and equitable solution to the storage of the toxic waste. There will be continued generation of high level radioactive waste during the period of extended operation - in an active seismic area - that exacerbates an already dangerous situation to the surrounding communities and beyond.
These are all significant issues which are not being addressed, and which pose an incredible risk to this community and to all of California if Diablo Canyon is allowed to operate beyond the expiration of its current license. I strongly urge you to deny the License Renewal Application and allow decommissioning to proceed as planned at the end of the license period in November, 2024 and August, 2025.
Thank you for your consideration, Julie Mansfield-Wells Los Osos, California
Federal Register Notice:
89FR4631 Comment Number:
37 Mail Envelope Properties (2131157980.6235021.1708677939095)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Diablo Canyon Scoping Comments Sent Date:
2/23/2024 3:45:39 AM Received Date:
2/23/2024 3:45:56 AM From:
Julie Mansfield-Wells Created By:
ja.gibson@att.net Recipients:
"DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource" <DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
mail.yahoo.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4136 2/23/2024 3:45:56 AM Options Priority:
Normal Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date: