ML24351A249
| ML24351A249 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/2024 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 89FR87433 | |
| Download: ML24351A249 (3) | |
Text
From:
Kathy Poggemann <kpoggemann@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 16, 2024 8:34 PM To:
DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource
Subject:
[External_Sender] Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Dear NRC,
I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this draft report. I am a citizen of Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County, and as a resident and a parent I am a climate advocate who is very concerned about our planet.
Thank you for conducting a thorough analysis of the environmental impact of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) and its alternatives. I agree with your recommendation that the environmental impacts of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant are minimal and should not prohibit a license renewal. It was reassuring to see in Section 3.14 that there is no new, significant information about its environmental effects. As a citizen concerned about climate change, I was very pleased to see the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions analysis in Section 3.15.31 highlights the importance of clean energy in addressing climate change.
However, please find below my feedback on specific areas of the report that I believe could benefit from further consideration and refinement.
- 1. No-Action Alternative: The analysis attempts to detail the negative impacts of not issuing the permit to DCNPP, but fails to address their implications for decarbonization efforts and grid reliability Since 2020, California has struggled with reliability, when the state had its first rolling blackouts since 2001, leaving nearly 2 million citizens without power for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. It is assumed that California can replace DCNPP, a plant that provides 10% of our states electricity and ignores state policies passed to prevent the closure. In 2022, the state legislator passed SB846, the bill that reversed and requested the continuation of the plant because of grid reliability concerns and insufficient capacity. In 2023 the California Energy Commission report confirmed concerns and warned of energy shortfalls, recommending Diablo stay online until 2030. If the plant is decommissioned, because natural gas is our marginal utility, dependence on natural gas and CO2 emissions would increase, as seen after San Onofre's closure.
- 2. Purchased Power Alternative: The EIS understates the socio-economic, GHG emissions, and environmental justice impacts of increasing energy output from existing generating facilities while also overestimating the states ability to procure capacity.
Because the state has struggled with reliability during times of high demand, expensive procurements and extensions of fossil fuels have burdened citizens. Californias electricity prices, already among the nation's highest, continue to rise, with many residents struggling to pay their bills. Although the report correctly states that emissions from purchased power will initially increase GHG emissions it assumes that because the state has mandates to stop burning fossil fuels after 2045 this means it will happen. However, the state had originally planned to close Diablo in 2016 claiming that enough replacement power would be ready but in 2022 that wasnt the case and SB846 legislation was passed to extend Diablo.
The loss of DCNPP was calculated in the MIT-Stanford report which found that delaying DCNPPs retirement could reduce carbon emissions by over 10%, save billions in energy costs, and improve grid reliability.
Delaying the retirement of Diablo Canyon to 2035 would reduce California power sector carbon emissions by more than 10% from 2017 levels and reduce reliance on gas, save $2.6 Billion in power system costs, and bolster system reliability to mitigate brownouts; if operated to 2045 and beyond, Diablo Canyon could save up to $21 Billion in power system costs and spare 90,000 acres of land from use for energy production, while meeting coastal protection requirements.
- 3. Renewables Combination Alternative: The framing of this alternative assumes sufficient capacity and underestimates the land and resource demands of renewable energy.
Nuclear energy, especially existing sites like DCNPP, has a significantly lower environmental footprint than solar, wind, or hydro when considering emissions and land use.
- 4. Table 3-34, the EIS incorrectly assumes that after 2045 the emissions are negligible. This fails to acknowledge the states inability to procure energy capacity and assumes the lost power from nuclear and gas will be replaced with clean energy sources.
In conclusion, I appreciate the thorough analysis and agree with your ultimate determination. However, I believe the report could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the potential negative outcomes of the alternatives to DCNPPs clean energy supply. I kindly ask that you consider this research when refining the final report. Thank you for the time and effort your team has dedicated to reviewing my comments.
Sincerely, Kathy Poggemann Homeowner, electric bill payer, parent, climate advocate
Federal Register Notice:
89FR87433 Comment Number:
52 Mail Envelope Properties (CAACcdQ1o9-vVPPOJBuo2F1eMYALfD4gzne+WMUZ1js-o7tz=sQ)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Sent Date:
12/16/2024 8:34:29 PM Received Date:
12/16/2024 8:34:44 PM From:
Kathy Poggemann Created By:
kpoggemann@gmail.com Recipients:
"DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource" <DiabloCanyonEnvironmental.Resource@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5785 12/16/2024 8:34:44 PM Options Priority:
Normal Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date: