ML24073A015

Comment (2) of Anonymous Individual on Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

ML24073A015
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	02/25/2024
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
NRC-2021-0146, 89FR10107 00002
Download: ML24073A015 (1)

Text

2/27/24, 10:04 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/2dbb5f0a-c17c-4f2c-bd20-951fbb389a17

SUNSI Review Complete As of: 2/27/24, 10:03 AM Template=ADM-013 Received: February 25, 2024 E-RIDS=ADM-03 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONADD: Lance Rakovan, David Status: Pending_Post Herrington, Ashley Waldron, Tracking No. lt1-wxwg-viir Mary Neely Comments Due: April 01, 2024 Comment (2) Submission Type: Web Publication Date: 2/13/2024 Citation: 89 FR 10107 Docket: NRC-2021-0146 Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Duke Ener gy Carolina, LLC Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3

Comment On: NRC-2021-0146-0005 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Document: NRC-2021-0146-DRAFT-0003 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-02963

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous Email: zmiracle25@my.asl.edu

General Comment

The license for Oconee Nuclear Plant should be renewed. Based on the data within the EIS it is clear that the level of emissions from the plant are far less annually than the gas alternative. (refer to table/chart on 3-18, 3-24). The Oconee plant license renewal is the least invasive alternative that is still productive.

More consideration should be given to the offshore wind alternative. Although it does not generate enough power to fully replace Oconee, it may be able to reduce the amount of power required from Oconee. This may reduce the power requirements from Oconee and lessen the waste Oconee produces in the long term, even if construction causes some short term effects.

It seems as though construction is required under all alternatives except the no action alternative, which would leave the plant in the same position it is currently without the benefit of power production.

Ultimately, a renewal appears to change nothing or have any adverse effects on the environment that aren't already present from the initial construction of the plant.

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/2dbb5f0a-c17c-4f2c-bd20-951fbb389a17 1/1