ML110130280

Comment (7) of Susan Michetti, on Behalf of Self, on Point Beach, Wi, Reactor Power Uppage Be Extended Due to Process Flaws Involving the Federal Register

ML110130280
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	01/08/2011
From:	Michetti S - No Known Affiliation
To:	Beltz T Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
75FR77010 00007
Download: ML110130280 (2)

Text

Mendiola, Doris

Subject:

FW: NRC TESTIMONY RE Point Beach WI Reactors From: Susan M [1]

Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 2:04 PM To: Beltz, Terry Cc: Diane-WNPJ Carbon Free

Subject:

Re: NRC TESTIMONY RE Point Beach WI Reactors

--- On Thu, 1/6/11, Susan M <stardustlOOOO@yahoo.com> wrote:

Addendum Re: Point Beach from Susan Michetti 1_4721eaV2 /

T1 0

C-..,

73 C-1 I ask that the comment period for Point Beach WI reactor power uppage be extended due to process flaws involving the Federal Register. The Federal Register link "Submit a formal comment" does not work. Clicking on it brings up "404 not found. The page you were looking for doesn't exist." Clicking on an index page to attempt to rapidly find pertinent facts also results in the same information with the "404' reference and page not not existing. This is unacceptable when involving a process with a deadline of today, which the register link does identify correctly. It also says that anything not filed today may not be read, depending on time.

This is citizen comment unfriendly.

When I talked to Terry Beltz on the phone, he asked questions that conveyed the impression that he was unaware that the comment link was not working. Who was responsible to check that those links worked for comments? Who is not doing their job properly? When there is only one comment link and it does not work, it is unacceptable. It is outrageous that NRC has not identified an email link to send comments, but it did not. This has created a flawed process that has suppressed comments from reaching the NRC. This is unacceptable. This is not democracy in action, but the appearance of it with obstacles that are unsurmountable for most, except a few very well experienced commenters who understand how to navigate this obstacle course that devours enormous time in an unacceptable way.

Terry Beltz informed me that a few others were able to find a way to email to him, but the federal register does not state that the official comments can be mailed to him, but rather that he is a source for problems. Most people are volunteers without time to problem-solve this obstacle course that the NRC has created for citizens trying to file formal comments.

There is no identified email link in the federal register itself, and this is unacceptable process with a broken link for filing formal comments. I have wasted more than 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> over my personal lack of a fax machine and over no identifiable email address to send formal comments. Snail mail usually takes 3 weeks, based on the information from Rep. Tammy Baldwin due to interference by Homeland Security to make sure that officials aren't terrorist targets. Under the circumstances, the NRC process is flawed in a way that is unacceptable and outrageous due to this failure to include an email address in the federal register itself for filing comments. This flaw prevents a workable system for formal comments. Therefore, this warrants that the Point Beach comment period be extended and republished in the Federal Register with comment' friendly links and fully disclosed contact information.

An investigation into the process errors is warranted to ensure that these do not happen again.

I have been told by others that they have given up due to the systemic flaws in the process that prevent comments from reaching their destination without excess wasted time in exploring how to get them there.

The argument that a few, probably very experienced filers, made it through the comment email process to Terry Beltz or whatever does not warrant any dismissal of my complaint of this process as comment unfriendly. It is obvious that the process itself has a serious flaw that should be reviewed by authorities higher than the NRC if this-comment period is not extended and if these comment obstacles are not cleared up in the future.

Point Beach has 2 of 4 Red Findings issued in the history of the NRC--the most serious failure notice. A $325,000 fine was issued by NRC for 16 safety violations, including potentially catastrophic May 1996 hydrogen gas explosion inside a loaded radioactive waste cask. The NRC said Point Beach operators were "inattentive to their duties" and that they were "starting up a power unit while one of its safety systems was inoperable." They failed to install the "required number of

cooling pumps." This was almost a Chernobyl or a Three Mile Island, and this does not warrant upping the power.

Point Beach has contaminated Lake Michigan surface water and groundwater with radioactive releases. This does not warrant upping any power and upping these releases that endanger human health. In 1975, Point Beach Unit 1 leaked about 10,000 gallons-of radioactive water into a retention pond that made it to ground water--unacceptable to human health. In 1997, 10,000 gallons ran from Unit 1 eventually into Lake Michigan--unacceptable to human and aquatic life.

in 1997, Unit 2 leaked discharge from a pipe and contaminated stream and Lake Michigan--unacceptable to human and wildlife. In 2005, a Point Beach worker was convicted in federal court of knowingly making false written statements to the NRC. This last conviction identifies a culture of falsification where a worker felt that the corporate interests were more important than public health and honesty.

This warrants a rejection of this proposal to up the power in this dilapidated nuclear reactor with a history of leaking pipes, operator negligence, operator errors resulting in human health hazards and a near major catastrophe, combined with this history involving lying to the NRC about safety issues.

The NRC admits and the EPA admits that any radioactive exposure is dangerous to human health. Tritium stays in the ecosystem for 120 years, when the half-life is calculated corrected. Point Beach almost had near meltdown with that hydrogen bubble, and it was not instrumental malfunctions but serious operator negligence and disregard of safety rules.

This creates legitimate stigma surrounding Point Beach which warrants rejection of their proposal to up the power and create more safety problems in a dilapitated reactor.

2