ML110130282

Comment (9) of Micheal Komba on Behalf of Self, Opposing Point Beachs Extended Power Uprate Proposal

ML110130282
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	01/06/2011
From:	Komba M Casa Maria Catholic Worker House Hospitality
To:	Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
75FR77010 00009, NRC-2010-0380
Download: ML110130282 (3)

Text

CATH1OLIC woPJCR HamS OF HOSPITAL IT January 6, 2011 Chief, Rules and Directive Branch, RDB TWB-05-BO1M Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. NRC Washington, DC 20555-0001 A11321 N. 21st btreet' P.

0 MilwaukeeWi 53205 Pho IT]

. Box 05206 fe: 344-5*45 tN)-

C-?

CIO Re...

Point Beach Extended Power Uprate proposal Federal Register 10, Dec.,0,,Vol.,75, No. 237,,page 77010-77017 bo-"

.....cýs. 5,6-26-6. dnd"5-0!-3-0-1-'

N*C2-? I0i6*380"';r ! !"-

. I r-.

-p jlz!"riý Dec..10, 2

-10o.

1.Vo75 No.23-77L 701f0770*17 aid Dck~t Nbs. 50-266 and 50-301;NRC-20"0-03780.To the Chiet Rues and Direc&tive rancn:

To wh om it may concern:

The Federal Register notification for this proposal (<

/e aes 08Stm>),

admits that approval would cause a 17 percent increase in the' radioactivity in the g6.seous' and liquid waste produced by the reactors (p. 77014). But surprisingly, the Environmental Assessment (EA) asserts that no improvements or alternations in current reactor or waste treatment machinery will be necessitated by the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) (p. 77015).

The noti ce 'states

, ',The rrimary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from the PBNP areradioacti've gaseous and hr qd efflu entýs. 'ihsc'ussed'albove, operation at the proposed EPU bcondiions willjot chan'ge'the rad.ioactive gaseous afid liquid waste i'

• ,"D:

• .t

(

'i ft n

e fun tio

s.

ls managementsystems' abilities. to f

tljei~iitended functions. Also, there would be no chanige to the radiation monitoring'systemr' aindprocedures used to control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with NRC radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

5o't)S2

/

"Based on the above, the offsite radiation dose to members of the public would continue to be within regulatory limits and therefore, would not be significant."

This assertion, written with the sophistication of a fairytale, is too preposterous to beý taken seriously. Any and all exposure to-ionizing radiation, internal or external, increases one's chances of cancer, birth defects, immune system dysfunction and other illnesses.'

Since the operators of this reactor complex have already been convicted of and fined

$60,000 for providing false information to federalregulators in 2005, absolutely nothing claimed by the licensee in Federal Register notification and the the EA should be.

believed but rather must be scrutinized with the utmost skepticism.

Because the two reactors in question are 40 years old, have a record of poor operations, and accidents, have been convicted of harassing whistleblowers and of~lying to government regulators, and cannot be expected to operate safely even 4 low power, the proposed power uprate should be denied with extreme prejudice.

,1~

Sincerely, MVhael Komba Casa Maria Catholic Worker 7,

0

?-k

W 1

2

""3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 o*

17 z

18 w

o 20 z

z 2

~z 21 22

=

23' 0

E23 U24 25 I

I 9

I..

A