ML21064A345

Comment (114) of Michael Fisher 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

ML21064A345
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/02/2021
From:	Fisher M - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR7747 00114, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML21064A345 (1)

Text

3/5/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/de221daa-623c-4c4f-ba8e-2590f5886328 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/de221daa-623c-4c4f-ba8e-2590f5886328 1/1 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 3/5/21 9:42 AM Received: March 02, 2021 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kls-99nt-05wd 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-0119 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-02001 Submitter Information Name: Michael Fisher Address:

COGGON, IA, 52218 Email: envfish@gmail.com Phone: 3195511579 General Comment The EIS needs to address worst case accident scenarios and not just the probability of occurrence but analyze the impacts from a reactor meltdown and radiated cooling water entering Lake Michigan.

The EIS needs needs to address alternatives to relicensure beyond the no action alternative. These alternatives should include building similar generating capacity from alternative forms of energy including photovoltaic solar plus storage, natural gas, and offshore wind.

The EIS must address the socioeconomic impact associated with property devaluation relative to other parts of WI should the relicensing occur.

The EIS must address the life-cycle impacts of the nuclear material used in the reactors including uranium mining and processing. The demand for uranium and subsequent mining is an indirect action of relicensure.

The EIS must address the construction impacts of decommissioning both for the proposed action and no action alternative.

The EIS must address the land use impacts from the no action alternative.Presuming no action is the expiration of the existing license how will the land affected by the plant be reused. Will the land for spent rod storage remain as an uneconomical burden on the community into perpetuity.

The EIS must present a thorough analysis of other past, present, and reasonably forseeable future cumulative actions that when considered in the context relicensure, may have the potential to significantly impact, including indirect impacts, the quality of the human environment. This analysis should include both short-term and long-term impacts.

SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Phyllis Clark, Bill Rogers, Mary Neely Comment (114)

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