ML23030B927

Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing of Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation

ML23030B927
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/30/2023
From:	Griggs W Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR)
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
RAS 56617, 50-445-LR, 50-446-LR, NRC-2022-0183
Download: ML23030B927 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of: §

§ VISTRA OPERATIONS COMPANY, LLC §

§ DOCKET NOS. 50-445 and

§ 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER § NRC-2022-0183 PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 §

§ RE: License Renewal Application § For Facility Operating License Nos. § NPF-87 AND NPF-89 § PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION COMES NOW the Petitioner, Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) on its behalf and on behalf of its members, by and through counsel, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

§2.309 and a notice published by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) at 87 Fed. Reg. 230, 73798 (December 1, 2022), and hereby moves for leave to intervene and requests a hearing in the matter of Vistra Operations Company, LLCs license renewal application. In the proceeding, Vistra Operations Company, LLC (Vistra) seeks to extend the NRC operating licenses for an additional 20 years beyond the current termination dates of February 8, 2030 and February 2, 2033 for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Units 1 and 2, respectively, in Somervell County, Texas, located near the City of Glen Rose and the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.

Specifically, this proceeding concerns the license renewal application (LRA) of CPNPPs current operating license pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act, as 1

amended and 10 C.F.R. Part 54 by Vistra Operations Company, LLC (Vistra) on October 3, 2022. The LRA was accepted for docketing and published by the NRC on October 31, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 65617). Notice of hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2022.

In support of this request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene, Petitioner further states as follows:

This petition sets forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised by the Petitioner. As demonstrated below, CFUR (on behalf of its members and represented persons Lon Burnam, Terry McIntire, Margaret DeMoss, Janet Mattern, Anita Smith, Suzanne Mabe and Karen Hadden) seeks to establish representational standing through its members and represented persons, in order to represent them in the pursuit of this Petition. Petitioner has separately filed its declarations respecting individual standing and delegation of authority to the Petitioner.

I. CFUR MEMBER STANDING A. Petitioner CFUR Petitioner Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation is a nonprofit organization made up of civically-minded volunteers who are also environmentally minded. They operate without official titles within the organization. Members live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, Somervell and Hood Counties, most within in a 50-mile radius of the CPNPP. Former Texas State Representative Lon Burnam, who represented Ft. Worth for 18 years, is a founding board member for CFUR, and helped form the group in the late 1970s to demand better and more consumer-friendly utility regulation. CFUR opposed the original 2

license for operation of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power plant and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The group remains committed to safe and affordable energy and is opposed to extending the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant license for an additional 20 years.

The group seeks standing in a hearing regarding the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Application.

More detail is provided in the attached declarations and summarized in the Member Declarations section below for group members who seek a contested case hearing as part of CFUR. One is Janet Mattern, who lives in Ft. Worth, Texas, within the 50-mile radius of Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. Suzanne Mabe and Lon Burnam are CFUR members who also live in Ft. Worth, within 50 miles of Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. Others include, e.g., Terry McIntire who owns a family farm in Bluff Dale, Texas, only 7 miles from CPNPP, and Margaret DeMoss who has asked CFUR to represent her. She owns a home 10 miles from the plant.

CFUR also seeks to protect the health, safety and welfare of its members and that of the broader community. CFUR now seeks to intervene in this proceeding on behalf of its members. By declaration submitted along with this Petition, CFUR wishes to represent all Member Declarants more specifically described below.

B. Member Declarations Lon Burnam is a founding board member of CFUR whose residence is located at 2103 6th Avenue, Fort Worth, Texas 76110. He lives and works within a 50-mile radius of CPNPP, and his home is less than 40 miles from CPNPP. Mr. Burnam, a former State Representative and 18-year member of the Texas Legislature is a founding board member 3

of CFUR, a group that formed in 1978 with critically-minded volunteers who care about the environment, public health and affordable energy. Mr. Burnam opposes the renewal application of CPNPP due to concerns over the seismic impacts of earthquakes on aging nuclear reactors and concerns about the releases of tritium and other radionuclides into the air and water. He is also concerned about embrittlement and metal fatigue impacting the safety of aging reactors and the availability of adequate cooling water for safe operation of CPNPP as climate change brings hotter temperatures and drought conditions.

Terry McIntire is a member of CFUR who owns a family farm where his 96-year old father lives located at 9702 Paluxy Hwy., Bluff Dale, Texas 76433. His property is within the 50-mile radius of CPNPP, and, in fact, is just 7 miles from the plant. Mr. McIntire is opposed to this license renewal because of the risk to the public from an unexpected nuclear accident that might come from the aging of the plant, from the increased earthquake activity near the plant and from the risk to the area residents of a terror attack.

Janet Mattern is a member of CFUR whose residence is located at 6662 St.

Andrews Rd., Fort Worth, Texas 76132. She lives in southwest Fort Worth within a 50-mile radius of CPNPP, and her home is about 30 miles from the plant. Ms. Mattern is opposed to extending he CPNPP license renewal for another 20 years because of the cost to the public and the risk of a calamitous event due to physical aging of the plant, increased seismic activity, the increased in population of the area, and water availability for CPNPP operations due to climate change.

Suzanne Mabe is a founding board member of CFUR whose residence is located at 1801 8th Avenue, Apt 1408, Fort Worth, Texas 76110. She lives within a 50-mile 4

radius of CPNPP, and her home is approximately 40 miles from the plant. Ms. Mabe is concerned about the request to extend the operations of CPNPP because of the age of the plant and all the problems she remembers that took 14 years for it to be built. She is troubled by the earthquakes in the region, the storage of nuclear waste and the general health and the safety of residents of North Texas who live in the area around the plant.

For these reasons, Ms. Mabe is opposed to CPNPPs license renewal application.

Anita Smith is a member of CFUR who owns property in Pecan Plantation, 8027 Ravenswood Rd., Granbury, Texas 76049. She lives within a 50 mile radius of CPNPP, and her property is only about 10 miles from the facility. She is opposed to the license renewal application for Comanche Peak due to her concern over the physical aging of the plant, the large number of people living in the area now due to population increases, increased seismic activity in the area due to injection wells, and federal agencies failure to adequately protect the public safety.

Margaret DeMoss owns a home at 9116 Ravenswood Rd. Granbury, Texas 76049. She lives well within the 50-mile radius of CPNPP and, in fact, her home approximately 10 miles from the plant. Ms. DeMoss has asked CFUR to represent her in this proceeding. Ms. DeMoss is opposed to extending the license agreement for CPNPP to operate for another 20 years without further investigation of the impacts of earthquakes, drought and aging on plant infrastructure and the cooling pond. Ms.

DeMoss used to work in the energy industry and is familiar with the modern safeguards of the public health. Since many more people live in close proximity now to the CPNPP, she believes public safety should be the number one concern in deciding whether to renew CPNPPs application.

5

Karen Hadden is a member of CFUR who lives at 605 Carismatic Lane in Austin, Texas 78748. She is the executive director of the Sustainable Energy &

Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, a Texas-based organization that seeks to reduce radioactive risks. She frequently visits friends within the 50-mile radius of the CPNPP and enjoys visiting recreational destinations near the plant such as Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose. She is opposed to extending the license agreement for an additional 20 years because of the aging infrastructure of the plant, the threat to the Squaw Creek Reservoir and surrounding land, and the threat of release of tritium and other radionuclides. She is concerned about the impact of these issues on the health and safety of the area residents and is troubled that the impacts of climate change have not been adequately considered.

C. Legal Basis for Standing Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §2.309, a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must address (1) the nature of the petitioners right under the Atomic Energy Act to be made a party to the proceeding, (2) the nature and extent of the petitioners property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding, and (3) the possible effect of any order that may be issued in the proceeding on the petitioners interest.

The NRC has applied judicial concepts of standing in the past to determine whether a petitioner has satisfied the general requirements above to intervene in this type of proceeding.1 A petitioner must demonstrate that (1) they have suffered or will suffer distinct and palpable harm that constitutes injury-in-fact within the zone of interests 1 See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327,332 (1983) (citing Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976).

6

arguably protected by governing statutes (e.g. the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); (2) the injury an be fairly traced to the challenged action: and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.2 An organization may intervene in a proceeding either on its own right by demonstrating harm to its organizational interests or in representational capacity by demonstrating harm to its members.3 For an organization to seek representational standing, it must demonstrate how at least one of the members may be affected by the licensing action, must identify that member by name and address, and must show that the organization is authorized to request a hearing on behalf of that member.4 D. Standing of CFURs Members Based on Proximity The declarations filed along with this Petition demonstrate that CFURs members have standing to participate. The member declarations have all authorized CFUR to represent their interests in this proceeding. CFUR has likewise committed to representing the Member Declarants in CFURs declaration filed contemporaneously with this Petition.

Since most of the Member Declarants live, work or recreate within 50 miles of CPNPP, each has demonstrated presumptive standing by virtue of their proximity to the 2 See Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plants), LBP-99-25, 50 NRC 25,29 (1999).

3 See Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Rd., Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), LBP-98-9, 47 NRC 261, 271 (1998).

4 See, e.g., Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI 12, 42 NRC 111, 115 (1995); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644, 646-48 (1979); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1) ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390-97 (1979).

7

plant.5 In an operating license amendment proceeding, a petitioner can base their standing upon a combination of residence or visits near the plant and a showing that the proposed action entails an increased potential for offsite consequences.6 Petitioners may be accorded standing if they live close enough to the planned project so that there is a reasonable apprehension of injury.7 Each Member Declarant explains that they will suffer (or be under the threat of suffering) particularized injuries from the continued operations of CPNPPs Units 1 and 2 without adequate analysis of the environmental effects and/or health and safety effects of the continued operations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and without consideration of the aging effects on certain safety-related structures, systems and components at CPNPP under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

These Member Declarants have expressed concerns that fall within the zone of interests protected by the NEPA and its implementing regulations.8 Their concerns also fall within the zone of interests protected by the AEA and its implementing regulations.9 The Member Declarants, therefore, have standing to intervene in their own right: they have met the requirements for injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability, and their 5 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-01-6, 53 NRC 138, 146, affd CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001).

6 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 191 (1999); Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), LBP-08-18, 68 NRC 533, 541 (2008).

7 Hydro Resources, Inc., supra.

8 See, e.g., Ouachita Watch League v. Jacobs, 463 F.3d 1163, 1173 (11th Cir. 2006) ([S]ince the injury alleged is environmental, it falls within the zone of interests protected by NEPA. . . .); Sabine River Auth v. U.S. Dept of Interior, 951 F.2d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 1992) (plaintiff concern about impacts on water quality and quantity fell within NEPAs zone of interests).

9 Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma site), 39 N.R.C. 54, 75 (1994).

8

concerns fall within the zone of interests protected by NEPA, the AEA, and their implementing regulations. They will be affected by CPNPPs proposed relicensing and failure to provide a legally adequate environmental analysis. They have provided their names and addresses, have authorized CFUR to intervene in this proceeding on their behalf. Thus, Petitioner CFUR has standing to pursue this action.10 The Member Declarants have proven geographical proximity to CPNPP and sufficient involvement and motivation in the relicensing issues, such that they should be afforded standing as individual petitioners. Thus, CFURs willingness to represent its members in this proceeding should result in recognition by the Commission of CFURs organizational legal standing to proceed to assert and litigate contentions on their behalf.

II. CONTENTIONS A license renewal is authorization from the NRC to operate an existing nuclear power plant at a specific site for up to 20 years. Before issuing a license renewal, the NRC staff must complete safety and environmental reviews of the application. The LRA must comply with provisions of the APA, NEPA, NRC regulations and all applicable laws. Petitioners contentions here implicate failures in the LRA to adequately analyze and consider several public health/environmental effects as described below.

A. Contention # 1 - The License Renewal Application (LRA) Lacks Adequate Data and Analysis Regarding Radiological Releases and Emissions and Potential Health Impacts

• The LRA is inadequate because it fails to include updated information on the release of tritium and other radionuclides, which is readily available and should be relied upon.

10 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), 60 NRC 548, 553 (2004).

9

• It fails to analyze cumulative radiological impacts and resulting potential health risks of operating Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years.

• It fails to fully analyze the hazards that would result from 20 more years of discharge of water that contains radioactive particulates and tritium into Squaw Creek Reservoir.

• The License Renewal Application fails to provide analysis of an additional 20 years of gamma emitters and cumulative impacts to farms, crops, wildlife, and vegetation.

• The LRA fails to analyze the financial consequences of 20 more years of radiologic releases and the potential cost of remediation in the future.

• The LRAs Environmental Report 3.6.4.2.1 History of Radioactive Releases discusses pipe leaks that led to radiation releases, but there is no analysis of similar pipe leaks or breakage that may occur in the future and the related radiation release increase that could result in aging nuclear reactors.11 This section is inadequate because it omits necessary information.

The LRA should include data from Luminants Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant 2021 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report.12 It discusses the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, which includes in annual reports:

11 Environmental Report 3.6.4.2.1, p. 1786.

12 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml2211/ml22118a088.pdf 10

• Measurement of ambient gamma radiation by Thermal Luminescent dosimetry

• Determination of airborne gross beta, gamma emitters and Iodine-13

• Determination of tritium and gamma emitters in Discharge Pathway surface water

• Determination of gross beta, tritium, Iodine- 131, and gamma emitters in potential drinking water sources

• Determination of tritium and gamma emitters in ground water and fish

• Determination of gamma emitters in food products

• Determination of gamma emitters and Iodine- 131 in broadleaf vegetation13 These types of measurements and determinations and key related data should be analyzed for an additional 20 years of operating Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2.

Within 20 miles of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant site there are 76 sample locations for various kinds monitoring.14 At some locations Thermo Luminescent Dosimeters measure direct (ambient) radiation levels quarterly and annually. Background radiation levels were accounted for. The previously referenced report found a total 2021 annual dose average of 39.785 mR (measured dose) and a maximum average dose of 0.145 mR/day. Samples taken near the Independent Spent Fuel Storage pad had a 1.462 quarterly average.15 13 Luminants Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant 2021 Annual Radiological Operating Report , p 6 14 Id. at 6-8.

15 Id. at 12-13.

11

Such key data points should be included in the License Renewal Application, which it fails to do so, and fails to analyze the potential health impacts to workers and the surrounding community regarding an additional 20 years of operation, including cumulative impacts.

The previously referenced report also found that gross beta activity from airborne Iodine-131 emissions reached a maximum of 9.70E-02 pCi/m3.16 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website states that external exposure to Iodine-131 can cause burns to the eyes and skin. Internal exposure can lead to absorption by the thyroid gland, potentially increasing the risk of thyroid cancer or other thyroid problems.17 Operating the Comanche Peak nuclear reactors for another twenty years would mean another twenty years of dangerous airborne emissions. Potential health impacts to the approximately 1159 full-time permanent employees, outage employees and the surrounding community should be analyzed.

Measurement of gamma emitters in food products and gamma emitters and I-131 in broadleaf vegetation are also important, especially considering the extent of farmlands near Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. The Environmental Report Section 3.2.2 on Offsite Land Use18 states that 69% of Somervell County is farmland, with 352 farms.

Farms in the region produce forage crops, wheat, and potatoes and have orchards. Hood county has 76.3 % farmland and 788 farms. Some raise cattle, sheep, pigs, and chickens.

Pasture lands rangelands and recreational parks could be impacted by airborne emissions.

16 Id. at 17.

17 https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/isotopes/iodine.htm 18 Environmental Report 3.2.2, page 1696.

12

The LRA fails to provide analysis of an additional 20 years of gamma emitters and cumulative impacts to farms, crops, wildlife, and vegetation, but it should.

According to Scientific American,19 tritium levels as high as 3.2 million picocuries per liter have been reported to the NRC at some nuclear facilities. Health studies were not considered in setting the 20,000 pCi/L drinking water standard. EPA calculated that the standard would result in an extra radiation dose of less than 4 millirems (or 40 microsieverts) per year, about the amount from a chest X-ray. Tritium is produced by cosmic rays, nuclear bomb detonations and nuclear power plants, so while nuclear plants are not the only source, it is important to consider their tritium contribution and how to limit it. Tritium is typically found in water, so it can be ingested by humans.

When beta particles are emitted inside the body, there is damage to DNA and cellular processes, which can lead to cancers.

In their August 2009 article in Science for Democratic Action, Radioactive Rivers and Rain: Routine Release of Tritiated Water from Nuclear Power Plants,20 Annie and Dr. Arjun Makhijani state that as radioactive water, tritium can cross the placenta posing some risks of birth defects and early pregnancy disorders. They note that EPAs Maximum Contaminant Goal for all radionuclides, including tritium, is zero. Table 2 from their article shows some comparative nuclear plant data:

19 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-radioactive-hydrogen-in-drinking-water-a-cancer-threat/

20 File:///radioactive-rivers-and-rain-routine-release-of-tritiated-water-from-nuclear-power-plants 13

Colorado and California set lower goals than the EPA standard for tritium in drinking water. Thorough analysis of the health and environmental impacts from tritium releases of an additional 20 years of operation Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant must be conducted and included in the License Renewal Application.

14

B. Contention 2 - Seismic Analysis in Inadequate; Lack of Complete Data Could Result in Seismic Risks The LRA fails to provide an adequate analysis of the magnitude of the seismic activity near the CPNPP. In Seismic Reference 3.5.4 (p. 1738-1739) of the CPNPP LRA, the applicant notes that 18 earthquakes have occurred within a 50-mile radius of the plant. Yet a former senior oil and gas geologist who researched the earthquake activity within a proximity of approximately twenty to thirty miles of CPNPP discovered more than one dozen earthquakes occurred in just a three-year period alone between the years of 2009 and 2012. See the diagrams which map these earthquakes in Exhibit A, attached, infra.

Though these multiple earthquakes were relatively minor ranging in magnitude from 2.0 to 3.3, the short timeframe of dates when these quakes occurred and the distances between events illustrates that these quakes were likely related to deep injection in the Barnet Shale Geological Area, a rich hydrocarbon-producing geological formation near the CPNPP. Additionally, in Section 3.5-2 of the LRA, the applicants list of Historical Earthquakes (p. 1751-1759) is not adequate in that it lists only those events at 3.0 magnitude or greater, yet more earthquakes have been documented as illustrated on the attached maps in Exhibit A. Furthermore, the five earthquakes in 2012 that all occurred during a 7-month period are within or proximal to the projected karst zone adjacent to Comanche Peak. The LRA did not account for issues related to the Karst topography of the nearby area. See Exhibit B, attached.

Exhibit B, attached, also illustrates a dormant lateral fracture system adjacent to the CPNPP. Relatively thick shales are associated with the permeable Ellenburger karst 15

zones. High pressure injection in the karst has been strongly associated with activating dormant fracture systems and earthquakes in the DFW area.21 This phenomenon has also been observed in Oklahoma.22 Though the applicant remarks that no earthquakes have been felt at the site since the beginning of site selection activities in the 1960s, that does not mean that earthquakes occurring during the plants years of operations have not contributed to the cracking, loss of material, fatigue, etc. The LRA documents cracking in various components throughout this section, including problem areas where Further Evaluation is Recommended. This includes:

- Cracking of piping, piping components, and piping elements.

- Cracking of various structural support components (page 418)

- Cracking of the concrete as it relates to the dome; wall; basemat; ring girders; buttresses, foundation; sub foundation (page 1029)

- Cracking and distortion due to increased stress levels from settlement including below-grade exterior and foundation (page 1041-1042)

- Cracking of concrete on the exterior above- and below-grade; foundation; interior slab (page 1044 of pdf) 21 Many Dallas-Ft. Worth Area Faults Have the Potential to Host Earthquakes New Study Finds, Texas Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, July 23, 2019.

https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/07/finds/#:~:text=A SMU Study Finds Earthquakes Continue for Years After Gas Field Wastewater Injection Stops, February 13, 2018. http://blog.smu.edu/research/2018/02/13/smu-study-finds-earthquakes-continue-for-years-after-gas-field-wastewater-injection-stops/#:~:text=SMU 22 Injection Wells Blamed in Oklahoma Earthquakes, Science.org, July 4, 2014, Vol 345, Issue 6192, pp.

13-14.

16

As documented in Section 3.5-1 (page 1049), the application also notes that there is a loss of material; Loss of form due to erosion, settlement, sedimentation, etc. on earthen water-control structures: dams; embankments; reservoirs; channels; canals and ponds.

The average lifespan of a dam, according to the Army Corps of Engineers is fifty years. The Squaw Creek Reservoir, now renamed Comanche Creek Reservoir, was completed in 1979. The material loss, embankment erosion, etc., of this 44-year-old earthen dam could have been enhanced by seismic activity. Years ago, the same geologist who mapped the earthquakes for these comments, found three lineaments that converged directly to the location of a minor breach on Lake Lewisville where the Army Corps of Engineers had found significant erosion. Due to these findings and the concern that additional drilling from proposed fracking leases could lead to a catastrophic breach on Lake Lewisville, these leases were pulled from auction by the Bureau of Land Management. Should a catastrophic breach occur on Comanche Creek Reservoir, used for cooling for CPNPP, the dam could release up to 151,273-acre feet of water, a potentially calamitous event. This type of concern is not adequately considered by the LRA.

In a response to a request for information sent to the NRC on March 27, 2014, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant failure, Luminant (a/k/a Vistra) expressed that There is no evidence of historical or modern earthquakes causing earthquake-induced geologic failure within the site region. Failure is the operative word in this instance. Though no failure has yet occurred at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant, that does not mean that cracking or damage may not have occurred or been 17

enhanced due to repeated seismic activity. See page 3 of the attached response to the NRC.

On page 4 of the same 2014 response to the NRC, the applicant determined that the maximum potential earthquake would be an intensity VII (Modified Mercalli Scale) event. This level of magnitude could cause meaningful damage to an aging plant such as Comanche Peak.

A recent article dated November 17, 2022, in the San Antonio Express-News entitled West Texas earthquake damages historic building on University Health campus illustrates how an earthquake, felt more than 350 miles away in Mentone, Texas near the New Mexico border, forced the evacuation of a historic San Antonio hospital building and effectively rendered it unsafe. The US Geological Survey attributed that this damage was caused by oil and gas extraction. According to the USGS geophysicist in the article, the frequency of Texas quakes has been increasing since 2015, noting that as the amount of oil and gas production has increased, there has been a corresponding increase in the rates of wastewater injection wells in the area. So those factors go hand in hand.

Also noted in the Express-News article according to the Texas Tribune, more than 200 earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or greater have occurred in Texas just in 2021, more than double the 98 recorded in 2020. This trend should be included in analysis in the License Renewal Application.

As both the Permian Basin and the Barnett Shale continue to ramp up oil and gas activities to meet energy demand, there is no guarantee that extraction activities wont cause slippage of the fracture adjacent to the plant.

18

When Comanche Peak was built, the now accepted understanding that both deep injection and, to a lesser extent, hydraulic fracturing can cause the slipping of lineaments or faults was not understood at that time. In areas where deep injection occurs, the frequency and the intensity of earthquakes tend to increase. Should major structural damage occur to the nuclear power plant or to the neighboring dam now approaching 50-years old, the results could be catastrophic. According to the applicants own data in Appendix E, Section 3.11-1 (see pages 1930-1934 of the pdf), almost 100 municipalities are located, in total or in part, within a 50-mile radius of the plant. These serious concerns should have been more adequately addressed and taken seriously by the LRA.

The region surrounding the plant is a highly populated, 19-county area with Tarrant County representing an overall population of more than 2.1 million residents. As stated by the applicant, there are three cities within the 50-mile radius of the plant with populations over 100,000 including Ft. Worth, Arlington, and Grand Prairie. Ten additional communities with populations over 25,000 within the same 50-mile radius include Burleson, Cedar Hill, Cleburne, Haltom City, Hurst, Mansfield, Midlothian, North Richland Hills, Waxahachie and Weatherford. Should a catastrophic event occur at the plant releasing radiation, the effects would not only affect these small villages and towns, but also prove devastating to largely populated areas in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. This concern should have been more adequately addressed.

Finally, reliance on an outdated 2013 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not prudent to evaluating this application in light of the information we now have ten years later about the effects of oil and gas operations, and their relationship to drilling, 19

deep injection, and seismic activity. The omission of updated data is another serious flaw in the LRA that must be remedied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

C. Contention 3 - The LRA fails to fully analyze predicted climate changes that could affect the ability of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant to have cooling water available at temperatures consistent with operational requirements The License Renewal Application fails to fully analyze increases in ambient water temperatures that could affect the capacity of the Squaw Creek Reservoir to maintain water temperatures consistent with Comanche Peak nuclear plant operational requirements. High temperatures can contribute to drought and increased evaporation, potentially impacting the ability to have enough cool water for the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plants to cool down.

Texas had intense drought statewide in 2022. The Texas Tribune reported in August, 2022, that about 27% of the state was under an exceptional drought and 62%

of the state was under an extreme drought. State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon said Weve been having several months of exceptionally high temperatures and below-normal rainfall, and as long as thats going on, drought conditions get worse.

20

Texas Tribune article stated that As of Aug. 16 (2022) 97% of the state is in some level of drought. The article stated that officials in Gunter, in North Texas, warned in July (2022) that the city could run out of water. Dry conditions in Texas could continue, especially later in the fall and winter, potentially leading to a multiyear drought, Nielsen-Gammon said. He expected that economic impacts of the current drought could be in the billions (of dollars).

And the longer the drought goes on, the more the impact starts shifting from agricultural issues to water supply issues, he (Nielsen-Gammon) said. Depleted reservoirs would require even more rainfall to recover, he added.23 The LRA fails to consider the effect on nuclear plant operations related to increased ambient temperatures of air and the effect of higher cooling water temperatures and limited quantities of water. The failure to consider these adverse impacts has the effect of omitting material information concerning water usage and anticipated temperatures, and the potential effects on plant operations.

The omission has the effect of overstating advantages of nuclear power and understating environmental impacts.

The LRA also omits discussion of predictions regarding increasing ambient water temperatures in the future, which could cause the nuclear units to decrease power output or cease operations altogether.

This omission is material because it bears on the suitability of the nuclear generation option when compared to other generation options that are not constrained by 23 https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/19/texas-drought-water-conservation/

21

ambient temperatures of surface water and on the ability of the reactors to operate when needed most, including peak demand times in the hottest months of the year.

The US EPA website states that More frequent and severe heat waves will likely increase the demand for electricity in the Southeast and Southwest. At the same time, these areas are likely to experience reduced water supplies due to increased temperature and evaporation, as well as possible decreased rainfall. Since water is necessary for electricity production, these combined effects could stress water resources.24 The potential impact of rising surface water temperatures was not compared to the potential surface water impacts related to alternatives for generating power. This omission is material because it bears on the suitability of the nuclear generation option when compared to other generation options that are not constrained by ambient temperatures of surface water.

WHEREFORE, CFUR prays the Nuclear Regulatory Commission accord it organizational standing to proceed on behalf of its members and represented parties for the above-stated contentions, and to admit those contentions for adjudication.

January 30, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ W. David Griggs WILLIAM DAVID GRIGGS Texas State Bar No. 08491100 1925 Belt Line Rd., Suite 552 Carrollton, Texas 75006 Telephone: (214) 244-5979 24 https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-energy_.html -

Overview 22

david@dgriggs.com COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER CITIZENS FOR FAIR UTILITY REGULATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwarded through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Electronic Information Exchange-Adjudicatory system on this 30th day of January 2023.

/s/ W. David Griggs W. DAVID GRIGGS 23