ML24055A002
| ML24055A002 | |
| 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: ML24055A002 (3) | |
Text
From:
Bruce Campbell <madroneweb@aol.com>
Sent:
Saturday, February 24, 2024 12:00 AM To:
DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Re: Docket ID NRC-2023-0192 Scoping Comments for DC-specific Supplemental to the GEIS (part two)
To whom it may concern at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and beyond:
This is part two of my comments on these Diablo Canyon-related documents about a seemingly smooth working partnership between three nuclear entities - the DOE, the NRC, and PG&E (and one could toss in the CPUC for good measure here as well).
I wish to add (despite DCs ongoing emission of radioactive carbon-14 during reactor operation) after the carbon-free within quotation marks in the 3rd to last sentence in the last paragraph of part one of my Diablo Canyon scoping comments. So I would like that sentence to read, Thus, not surprisingly, the CA Legislature was certainly under the impression that DCNPP (and nuclear reactors generally) was carbon-free (despite DCs ongoing emission of radioactive carbon-14 during reactor operation), and that the DCNPP was the sole choice available to guarantee a reliable grid. (Actually the opposite is the case.)
I want to note that in reviewing documents relating to the legislation from the California Legislature, SB 846 from State Senator Dodd, which was supposed to be in regards to alcohol regulation, I wish to share what time frames or estimates were given within the text of that enabling bill from the CA Legislature which was signed by Governor Newsom on September 2nd, 2022. I guess the fallback shutdown date are the date(s) which are at the very end of their current operating licenses - which in this case, are November 2nd, 2024, for Unit 1, and August 26th, 2045 for Unit 2. There are several mentions of potential DC operating license extension for 5 years, and then there also appears to be the option of shutdown dates somewhere in between the date of the currently-planned shutdown and the date 5 years after the current operating licenses expire.
In regards to how intense the killing and alteration of marine life is in the Diablo Cove / Pacific Ocean area, I note that the California Coastal Commission has been quoted as saying, It would be fair to categorize Diablo Canyon as the largest marine predator. There should likely be an assessment within your upcoming paperwork in regards to the cumulative impact on some local (especially but not exclusively marine) species from yet more thermal pollution into Diablo Cove combined with warming oceans and shifting ocean currents.
I noticed in some industry Diablo Canyon documents that it is odd to hear the jobs argument in regards to the DCNPP. Compared to virtually any other source of energy, there are actually fewer jobs at nuclear and certain other concentrated energy facilities. Apparently there are a number of worker hires at DC (and commercial nuclear facilities generally) during the time when nuclear reactors are undergoing re-fueling.. But it is quite apparent, unless one is just spouting misinformation to help a simultaneously collapsing and resurging nuclear industry,
that alternative decentralized energy sources create many magnitudes more jobs than do concentrated facilities such as the DCNPP. (This is true even when keeping in mind that it is generally not good to lay off safety-related staff at such facilities.)
In regards to which alternatives may be offered in the DC-specific Supplemental to the GEIS, I believe that the No Action Alternative must be among those options. I surmise that if No Action Alternative wins out (but then an associate told me that an agency cannot choose the No Action Alternative), that the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors will expire at the end of their operating licenses on those dates mentioned in the third paragraph of this part two of my comments (as to what scope the DC-specific Supplemental to the GEIS will take).
At least the CA Legislature was talking some about trying to meet certain clean energy goals which in earlier years garnered a waiver to allow once-through cooling discharges from the DCNPP, but some figure that since the nuclear industry has been very successfully using their muscle and influence especially during and since the pandemic, that it should have some clean energy goal as an excuse to get waivers from friendly regulatory agencies like the NRC and the DOE. Anyway, certainly there should be alternatives offered featuring solar, wind, non-fracking geothermal, clean hydrogen, battery storage, and other energy sources. Be sure to include plenty of decentralized solar in at least one of the offered alternatives in this environmental impact document on which you are embarking.
I meant to give some quotes from the CA legislation of late summer 2022 to demonstrate that they mentioned 5 years as the time frame for possible Diablo Canyon reactor license extensions at least a few times.
It is not premature to close this dangerous aging facility.
Sincerely yours, Bruce Campbell Los Angeles, CA 90034
Federal Register Notice:
89FR4631 Comment Number:
47 Mail Envelope Properties (067801da66de$43bccaf0$cb3660d0$)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Re: Docket ID NRC-2023-0192 Scoping Comments for DC-specific Supplemental to the GEIS (part two)
Sent Date:
2/23/2024 11:59:35 PM Received Date:
2/23/2024 11:59:50 PM From:
Bruce Campbell Created By:
madroneweb@aol.com Recipients:
"DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource" <DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
aol.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4855 2/23/2024 11:59:50 PM Options Priority:
Normal Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date: