ML21064A332

Comment (108) of Kathryn Barnes 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

ML21064A332
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/01/2021
From:	Barnes K - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR7747 00108, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML21064A332 (2)

Text

3/4/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/91e7a3ab-a47a-4b64-944e-c19b16f27179 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/91e7a3ab-a47a-4b64-944e-c19b16f27179 1/2 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 3/4/21 4:39 PM Received: March 01, 2021 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. klr-clcd-06a5 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-0113 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-02001 Submitter Information Name: Kathryn Barnes Address:

MI, Email: greenwoodsart@msn.com General Comment I am deeply concerned about the potential for more environmental damage in extending the licensing of the Point Beach nuclear reactor in Wisconsin, which sits on the ever rising waters of Lake Michigan's western shores. Because of global warming, it is hard to know what the lake will be like in twenty years, and if the last few years are an indication, the water will be ever higher and the beach will become more eroded, which will flush any contamination in the soil under the plant into the lake. As the plant has been known to have tritium leaks and internal contamination (cask accident of 1996) there is no time like the present to begin a REGULATED monitored clean up and decommissioning. Since the only way to assure that more nuclear waste not be created, there is no time like the present to stop making it.

Also, I do not think there is any justification for taking the risk of operating a nuclear power plant beyond its license, or actually until its license expires, which is an extension to begin with. I do not think it is wise responsible or prudent to relicense the facility or to stall off decommissioning and drain decommissioning funds. Allowing a shell company to throw liability onto the public is criminal. The quality of the water of the Great Lakes is predominant over any other issues that would risk and destroy this precious resource. The people who live in the Great Lakes area, which may be one of the few pleasant areas to live in with an increase in global warming, deserve better than lives forfeit to mismanagement and neglect of what is at hand....which is the safe shut down and decommissioning of another dangerous and aging nuclear power plant. The nuclear industry can not be let off the hook, granted exemptions, allowed loopholes or in any way compromise safety standards. The decommissioning process will take years of careful, thoughtful and unhurried care and the longer it is put off, the greater the risk.

I believe time is running out. The environment needs to be cleaned up. Our lakes need to be safe. The future needs to be secure for our children's children's children. Because of the toxic longevity of nuclear waste, there is no way out, no justified shortcuts, and no time like the present to grasp the enormity of the SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Phyllis Clark, Bill Rogers, Mary Neely Comment (108)

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

3/4/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/91e7a3ab-a47a-4b64-944e-c19b16f27179 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/91e7a3ab-a47a-4b64-944e-c19b16f27179 2/2 issues and to shut the plant down, stop making nuclear waste and clean up the toxic mess and store the nuclear waste away from the shore in monitored, secure containers, built to last safely for generations with the capability of moving waste to new containers should any problems occur. There can be no 'bad' welds, no incompatible zinc liners or anything else wrong with containment. It is not right to risk spills and melt downs or terrorism with transporting it. Nuclear waste should not be put on a barge, roads or rails across the country, it should not be 'recycled' into consumer products or to create more nuclear reactors. It will have to be secured and allowed to lose its contamination for thousands of years. It is an awful legacy we are passing to future generations.

There is no time like the present to stop the creation and contamination of nuclear waste.

This whole process is serious. For a fact, where there are tritium leaks, such as under and around nuclear power plants, whereas simply removing three feet of contaminated soil may not be enough. It should be treated like a cancer. In an operable cancer, tissue is removed and analyzed until no more cancer is detected. It is surgically removed layer by layer until the tissue remaining will not kill the patient. The same principle should apply to contamination by nuclear waste that will, if left, leech out and contaminate the Great Lakes. Soil (i.e. sand which is porous) will need to be removed and analyzed until there is no more contamination by tritium or any other radioactive element that could contaminate the water. This process should not be compromised to a 3' removal when the contamination may be hundreds of feet deep and in a plume out from the source.

The NRC said the worst case scenario is when the nuclear plant is filled with concrete and left on site.

Therefore, the NRC must not let this happen, but must require complete removal and restoration of the site. Where the radioactive elements and waste is removed to must be a place that is secure and does not pollute.

These are my concerns and my public comment on Point Beach.