ML24055A003
| ML24055A003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/2024 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 89FR4631 | |
| Download: ML24055A003 (4) | |
Text
From:
John Ullcott <ullcott@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Saturday, February 24, 2024 3:00 AM To:
DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] FW: Re: Docket ID NRC-2023-0192 To: Nuclear Regulatory Commission+
'DiabloCanyonEnvironmental@nrc.gov' <DiabloCanyonEnvironmental@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Re: Docket ID NRC-2023-0192 Scoping Comments for DC-Supplemental GEIS RE: Supplemental to GEIS Operating License Extensions for commercial nuclear reactors, of greatest personal existential threat:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP), &
San Onofre Nuclear Generation Stations (SONGS)
Note: for purpose of these Comments, a reference to nuclear = nuke To all it may concern: at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and beyond:
Thank you for the opportunity to send Comment.
These are my scoping comments on the DCNPP-related Supplemental to an earlier GEIS for operating license extensions for commercial nuke reactors in the USA.
A thorough, updated seismic study is needed at all Nuke power plants, from the surrounding site nearby its surroundings, to all structures standing (whether being used or not).
- 1. These should model what would happen in the case of catastrophic cliff failures, & natural debris flows from surrounding watershed drainage in a major earthquake event
- 2. Ditto, except model the cause of collapse, model liquefaction & a Tsunami event this time.
3a. Model how such debris flows could effect site drainage & evaluate structural integrity of all buildings at the facility afterward, particularly those containing active or stored nuke material, and should modeling demonstrate partial breaches or leveling of onsite architecture/ pools/ vaults, if they might collapse, what is the risk to life-safety, & how far across the land/ out to sea would mixed & uncontrolled waste outfall would flow horizontally & vertically.
3b. Describe in detail EXACTLY what will happen to all onsite waste stored in all paper-thin Holtec canisters after such an event
- 4. Study what life-safety risk would result from collapsed/ incapacitated electric infrastructure on the site, particularly if power & signaling circuits were cut with no ability to operate pumps or cooling systems, or transmit site-generated power out onto a severed grid which would apply to all plants that draw from natural waterbodies for cooling
- 5. Study what level of protection the public can expect in the event of either type of disaster: Report what training, preparations/ planning, contingencies and relationships have been already established with Police/ Fire/ EMT, and Hospitals for treatment of mass casualties/ & mass radiation casualties, with CalTrans/ Rail Lines/ Utilities should either of those disasters be triggered For earthquake visualization, list perhaps a Richter scale reading for which we are prepared to prevent catastrophe, a Richter scale reading for which we are 100% Unprepared & an Aspirational one between them.
For Tsunami, perhaps also list 3 different height tsunamis: were Prepared, were 100% Unprepared, and an Aspirational one between them.
Particularly noting how sea-level rise is now, already impacting coastal California, heavy storms for the last 2 wet winters have been taking down coastal bluffs, the Coast Rail Line has been severed multiple times at San Clemente & at Del Mar (=a vital military STACNET corridor to San Diego; abandonment is not an option).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES:
- 1. The recent discovery of 2 VERTICAL THRUST FAULTS UNDER THE DIABLO CANYON FACILITY REQUIRES COMPLETION OF A FULL SEISMIC ANALYSIS, INCLUDING PROJECTIONS OF HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL GROUND DISPLACEMENT & ACCELERATION.
Diablo Canyon (=Devil Canyon) was a terrible site for a Nuke Plant from the get-to. Its past time to reconsider closing it this year, as it is also EXPIRED = past its design lifetime, which was true at SONGS and led to its early closure. Despite the Triumphant Politics-Over-Science of Gov. Nuisance, it is still true,
& ever more pressing, that Diablos time is up, and extending its life is more of an emergency than ever at DCNPP. Any truth-telling Study-like the one you are Scoping for-will refuse to paper over this truth.
- 2. Consider in earthquake analysis that scientists believe slippage of a long-locked portion of the central San Andreas Fault could bring a CATASTROPHIC EARTHQUAKE TO WALLOP THE ENTIRE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Needless to say, nearly all transportation & utility power would be severed for some time, while a nuke spill would go uncontrolled & unaddressed for some time. Your study must publish what will happen to the nuke spill that scenario will produce, including how much of the marine coastline will be off limits (for how long will fisheries be impaired) due to radiation exposure, and for how many years we will have to wait for a safe day at the beach, considering the half-life of 20,000 years for Spent(sic) nuclear fuel rods or paper-thin nuke-waste containers (at both DCNPP & SONGS). Publish what is the total population of communities (around each nuke plant that should suffer such catastrophe) that will have to evacuate.
the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors were precariously situated and likely could not withstand GROUN Certainly any forthcoming Diablo Canyon-specific Supplemental to the GEIS must include a CURRENT DETAILED ASSESSMENT in regards to the condition of the Diablo Canyon facility. This must include not just its PRESSURE VESSELS, but we also need an update in regards to the 3000 problems at the Diablo facility which had been reported via sworn testimony by 105 workers (facilitated by the Government Accountability Project) in the time preceding final approval for PG&E to "fire up" / reach criticality at its Unit 1 Reactor. This was after 2 and a half years of repairs following the major delay at Diablo Canyon brought about by an engineer blowing the whistle about switched blueprints for seismic reinforcements in Diablo Canyon's auxiliary cooling systems. Such a report happened to get major publicity since it was came to light during the time when the Diablo Canyon Blockade /
Encampment was taking place. PG&E brought more experienced nuclear power facility construction firm Bechtel in to at least look like they were fixing enough things such as the auxiliary cooling systems so that PG&E could get another rubber-stamp this time to fire up Unit 1 to a "low-power test" level. So, despite 3000 outstanding problems sworn to by workers at Diablo Canyon, the NRC allowed Diablo Canyon reactors to "go critical" despite not resolving that huge backlog of problems sworn to by workers of the DCNPP.
THERE IS NO SAFE DUMP SITE OR GEOLOGIC SOLUTION TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE-LONG TERM OR SHORT TERM-ON EARTH!
This should have blocked any Fission reactors (leaky teapots at boil leaning over the edge of the stove).
Until this is solved, NO MORE NUKES SHOULD BE USED OR WASTE CREATED ANYWHERE! The only possible solution, which depends on 100% reliable rocketry launched from pads poured next to Nuke Plants, is to launch it to the Sun. And Never do Nukes again. The Scale of existing waste is staggering.
Until then, it must stay in place, but in canisters sturdy enough to be replaced before they become too brittle. This topic should be covered in your study.
The DCNPP-specific Supplemental to the GEIS must clearly PRINT the ACTUAL TEXT (rather than a mere legal code # or even link) of various pieces of LEGISLATION which argue that DCNPP is eligible for Federal Bailout govt. in order to extend its operating license for nuke reactors for another 20 years+/-
reason why PG&E insists on delays in regards to "safety reviews"? Then that same paragraph continues and discusses how various enviro review activities
can be streamlined, and how old EISs might count toward supposedly adequate analysis of safety systems at the DCNPP and whether they can withstand the vertical and horizontal ground acceleration which might be delivered by faults in the area of the DCNPP. So, let's see if I am clear on this -
delay safety reviews at least during Unit 2 refueling outage, but then try to accelerate review of various aspects of the facility including using analyses from 15 years ago, or inspections from around 18 years ago. Please do a thorough job and do not avoid or delay any safety reviews to please any investor-owned utility. Also, please publish in future enviro impact documents the reason why PG&E is hoping to avoid "safety reviews" at the DCNPP at least when Unit 2 goes offline for refueling.
Thank you for this opportunity for Comment, (John Ulloth) ullcott@yahoo.com
Federal Register Notice:
89FR4631 Comment Number:
48 Mail Envelope Properties (353316002.186765.1708761579511)
Subject:
[External_Sender] FW: Re: Docket ID NRC-2023-0192 Sent Date:
2/24/2024 2:59:39 AM Received Date:
2/24/2024 2:59:55 AM From:
John Ullcott Created By:
ullcott@yahoo.com Recipients:
"DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource" <DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
mail.yahoo.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 8730 2/24/2024 2:59:55 AM Options Priority:
Normal Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date: