ML21050A139

Comment (28) of Croitiene Ganmoryn on Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement; NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

ML21050A139
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	02/19/2021
From:	Ganmoryn C - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR7747 00028, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML21050A139 (2)

Text

2/19/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/be1d3c19-3da9-4872-a7eb-c982b2319e21 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/be1d3c19-3da9-4872-a7eb-c982b2319e21 1/2 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 2/19/21 9:05 AM Received: February 19, 2021 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. klb-w4wc-1bm3 Comments Due: March 03, 2021 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2020-0277 Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Comment On: NRC-2020-0277-0001 Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement; NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Document: NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0032 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-02001 Submitter Information Name: Croitiene ganMoryn Address:

Ocala, FL, 34480 Email: adanto@jps.net Phone: 3526204708 General Comment I oppose this life-extension of a KNOWN nuclear catastrophe!

"Point Beach Unit 2 has the worst-embrittled reactor pressure vessel of any pressurized water reactor in the country. Decades of additional neutron radiation bombardment will only increase the risk of a pressurized thermal shock, through-wall fracture, core meltdown, and catastrophic release of hazardous radioactivity.

To give an idea of how catastrophic, in terms of casualties and property damage, consider the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) own CRAC-II report. CRAC is short for Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences. It is also known as "Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria Development," the 1982 Sandia (National Laboratory) Siting Study, NUREG/CR-2239, and/or SAND81-1549.

In the event of a core meltdown at Point Beach 2, CRAC-II predicted: 500 peak early fatalities (acute radiation poisoning deaths); 9,000 peak early (radiation) injuries; and 7,000 cancer deaths (latent cancer fatalities).

In terms of property damages, CRAC-II predicted $43.8 billion, expressed as Year 1982 dollar figures.

When adjusted for inflation alone, this figure would now be $119 billion, in Year 2020 dollar figures.

And as Associated Press investigative journalist Jeff Donn reported in June 2011, in the aftermath of the beginning of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe in Japan, in his four-part series "Aging Nukes,"

populations have soared around U.S. nuclear power plants like Point Beach, so casualty figures would SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Phyllis Clark, Bill Rogers, Mary Neely Comment (28)

Publication Date:2/1/2021 Citation: 86 FR 7747

2/19/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/be1d3c19-3da9-4872-a7eb-c982b2319e21 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/be1d3c19-3da9-4872-a7eb-c982b2319e21 2/2 now be even worse than CRAC-II predicted nearly 40 years ago.

Donn also cited neutron radiation embrittled reactor pressure vessel pressurized thermal shock risk as the top example of NRC regulatory retreat in the past number of decades.

And as Fukushima has also shown, reactor meltdowns can proceed domino effect at multi-reactor sites. A meltdown at Unit 2 could lead to a meltdown at Unit 1, or vice versa, in which case those casualty and property damage figures above would have to be doubled."

"Re: the high-level radioactive waste that would be generated at Point Beach nuclear power plant, if NRC rubber-stamps 80 years of operation at the two reactors:

Each reactor would generate at least 20 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel (highly radioactive waste) per year.

20 metric tons X 20 years (the extension on the already rubber-stamped 60-year license) = 400 metric tons per reactor.

400 metric tons X 2 reactors = 800 metric tons.

Thus, two decades of additional operations at Point Beach, on top of what NRC has already approved, would mean yet another 800 metric tons, or more, of additional high-level radioactive waste that would be generated, for which we still have no safe, sound solution, after 64 years of commercial/civilian nuclear power (and high-level radioactive waste generation) in this country. This additional 800 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel would represent a catastrophic risk in and of itself, to public health, safety, security, and the environment, and would be a curse on all future generations. High-level radioactive waste remains hazardous and deadly for more than a million years. 20 years of electricity generation at Point Beach is not worth the more than a million years of hazard associated with the high-level radioactive waste that would be generated. This is especially outrageous, when clean, safe, secure, affordable, and reliable renewables, such as wind and solar, combined with efficiency and storage, can readily displace Point Beach in terms of electricity supply."