Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Comment Due Jul 23, 2018 11:59 PM ET (10:59 CDT) https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NRC-2017-0141
This is to comment on the environmental impacts of relicensing River Bend Nuclear Power Station near St. Francisville (and Baton Rouge) Louisiana starting from midnight August 29, 2025 to 2045.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft plant-specific Supplement 58 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating license NPF-47 for an additional 20 years of operation for River Bend Station (RBS), Unit 1. The RBS is located in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. Submit comments by July 23, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date…. Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0141 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NRC-2017-0141

Document upon which to comment: https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=NRC-2017-0141-0008&contentType=pdf

Our scoping comment from last year, found below, appears to have been mostly and maybe entirely ignored by the NRC, although it was posted: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2017-0141-0006

River Bend, Unit 1 Scoping Environmental Impact. ID: NRC-2017-0141-0004

Need to thoroughly evaluate:
Short, medium, long, very long-term evacuation-abandonment (100 yrs plus) within 10 to 50 mile radius:

The combined environmental and socio-economic impact of a nuclear disaster impeding ops in the nearby petro-chemical corridor out to 50 miles must be evaluated. WHY IS ENTERGY USING A 6 MILE ZONE ON ITS MAPS?

If workers at petro-chemical plants must be evacuated due to nuclear disaster, the environmental impacts evaluation should include a combination of nuclear, fire and radiological and chemically toxic fumes (apart from the fact that most radionuclides are both radiologically and chemically toxic).

Impacts of a nuclear disaster on the major US transportation routes crossing the area – interstate highways, river shipping and port facilities within the 50 mile radius and beyond must be evaluated.

Impacts on tourism and irreplaceable cultural sites, including the historically significant ones noted on the RB site, which will be lost forever in a nuclear disaster. Entergy is hiding info with a blank page on what seems to be a site of incredible significance to Native American history, likely including burial grounds; significant cultural artifacts.

Impacts of BOTH the accumulation of ongoing (legal) nuclear discharges on the regional environment, some very long-lived, and nuclear accident upon the environment-population must be properly evaluated. These must include contamination cost and purification costs of groundwater; river-Gulf-ocean water; land; air. Your dilute to deceive scam fails over time.

Impacts upon colleges-universities: Southern in Baton Rouge, LSU, and any others; likely impacts upon UL Lafayette just outside the 50 mile zone must be reported.

Renewable Alternatives must be properly evaluated. They are not. Renewables must be evaluated in combination, as well as with improved insulation, rather than Entergy’s either-or.

Increasing CF (Capacity Factors) for PV and other renewables must be considered, and compared to the declining CF of RB nuclear – offline for months at a time due to defects-need of repair. CF for current solar PV and PV CF in 8 years time must be the comparision. Ditto for algae fuels, wind, etc. RB may be at 0 for 5 mths plus per year like Grand Gulf has been.

Insulation-new films which keep heat out must be considered in combo with renewables-other non-nuclear alternatives.

Community; individual; utility owned rooftop solar (& PVs on parking lots) options must be considered, not only utility scale on virgin land. Even for virgin land, a 20,000 acres est. for PV solar must be compared to the 5,026,400 acres within 50 mi of RB which may be a permanent no-go zone (over 1 million acres for Chernobyl). Acres need for solar is declining, too.

Comparison must consider socio-economic and environmental costs of major nuclear disasters, especially the area being a permanent no-go exclusion zone. Both renewable and oil-gas alternatives then are best.

Impact of RB nuclear disaster on the French speaking minority of Louisiana must be considered. The 50 mi radius backs into Lafayette, cutting across native French speaking area, i.e. cultural genocide.

For environmental justice impacts on African Americans, the proper comparison is to the national avg – NOT the Louisiana or MS avg., nor the region. US avg. African American population is 13.3%; population in the 50 mile radius is 36.4%, meaning there is an environmental justice issue.

Cost of evacuation of populations from the 10 mile radius and from the 50 mile radius must be evaluated, along with feasibility.

Financial and social costs should include but not be limited to health care. Impacts of life-shortening effects, including loss of family care-givers must be included. The US govt BEIR report puts increased cancer rate at 1% per 100 mSv exposure. A more recent US govt funded study suggests that it is higher-15% or greater. Using the outdated ICRP percentage is unacceptable. What is the financial & psychological cost for fertility treatments due to radiation induced infertility? The psychological cost when they are ineffective? Not all feel that more immigration is a fair substitute for having their own children. Immigrants replacing locals is actually defined as genocide.

What about the largest maximum-security prison in the United States with 6300 prisoners & 1,800 staff, about 25 miles from RB, in the event of a nuclear disaster? What are the security and other consequences of either leaving them – probably without staff supervison or evacuating them and to where?

What about the consequences of a nuclear waste accident on site, either spent fuel fire or crack within the unmonitored 1/2 thick Holtec spent fuel canisters? Entergy and Holtec have requested that important information be withheld: See: ML052280428
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NRC-2017-0141-0006

IF YOU COMMENTED LAST YEAR ON THE SCOPING DOCUMENT THEN YOUR COMMENT WASN’T POSTED AND YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN.

Ref to Entergy Enviro Impact for RB: ML17174A531
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1717/ML17174A531.pdf
License renewal documents: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1715/ML17153A282.html