ML21062A027

Comment (36) of Ernest Fuller 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

ML21062A027
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	02/21/2021
From:	Fuller E - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR7747 00036, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML21062A027 (2)

Text

3/2/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/2626b9be-bc05-41d9-8cc2-c759677df5ab SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 3/2/21 3:53 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: February 21, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Phyllis Clark, Bill Rogers, Mary Neely Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. klf-wvpi-vt6l Comment (36)

Publication Date:2/1/2021 Comments Due: March 03, 2021 Citation: 86 FR 7747 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-0040 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-02001 Submitter Information Name: ERNEST FULLER Address:

SIX MILE RUN, PA, 16679 Email: fullercogm@gmail.com General Comment First, this entire process appears to be rushed since the current expiration dates of the licenses for the two reactors do not occur for at least ten years. Considering the current significant changes being made in energy production and its use it is too early to know whether extending the licenses for these reactors will be reasonable in ten years. There are too many unknowns in all the environmental effects to be considered to attempt to do it now unless the process leaves open reconsideration of any decision closer to the expiration dates based on the then current information.

When Point Beach was built, alternative energy was not as common and not as economical as it is now.

Therefore this EIS needs to thoroughly study the alternative options of other energy sources such as wind and solar in comparison to the proposed action of extending the license of these reactors. The analysis should include comparative analysis of the proposed action to the alternatives including no action with respect to jobs and tax base and include the indirect effects of alternative energy scenarios.

The EIS must address the consequences of a range of nuclear reactor accidents (from excess radiation leaks to meltdowns) for each Point Beach Unit and also for accidents that effect both units for the local communities within a 50-mile radius and for Lake Michigan and the entire Great Lakes watershed. In addition the socio-economic impacts to the community if an accident occurs must be evaluated; particularly what would happen to peoples livelihoods, especially farmers whose land and livestock will be contaminated.

The EIS needs to address the effects of the release of water into Lake Michigan, the temperature at which the water is released and how that water effects the natural ecosystem in the surrounding lake area. At present, Green Bay and Lake Michigan are experiencing increased episodes of harmful algae and bacteria blob:https://www.fdms.gov/2626b9be-bc05-41d9-8cc2-c759677df5ab 1/2

3/2/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/2626b9be-bc05-41d9-8cc2-c759677df5ab (cyanobacteria) blooms that affect both the aquatic environment and recreation. Prolonging the operation of these reactors may worsen these problems. The EIS should cover the threat of water level fluctuations on Lake Michigan as well. Specifically, climate change models and the reasonably foreseeable impacts to water levels and climate conditions, including the recent higher frequency of significant disasters, must be considered. Additionally, what measures must be put be in place to ensure that higher water levels do not affect the reactors or storage units.

Finally, it is important that the EIS address the long-term impacts from storage of nuclear waste materials including the spent reactor rods both on-site and at any other radioactive waste repositories as well as the future costs relating to this waste. Both the energy involved in the production and eventual storage of the additional reactor rods should be fully considered.

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/2626b9be-bc05-41d9-8cc2-c759677df5ab 2/2