ML21064A359

Comment (122) of Aleks Kosowicz on 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

ML21064A359
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/02/2021
From:	Kosowicz A - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR7747 00122, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML21064A359 (2)

Text

3/5/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/8dd74874-8e91-4122-8135-840e130b2d9c SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 3/5/21 10:39 AM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: March 02, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Phyllis Clark, Bill Rogers, Mary Neely Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kls-ib88-d7qq Comment (122)

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-0127 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-02001 Submitter Information Name: Aleks Kosowicz Address:

Abrams, WI, 54101 Email: guerillawordfare@yahoo.com General Comment I respectfully petition, first, that the EIS scoping/comment period be extended due to the communication challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The public at large deserves the opportunity to be fully educated about and comment on this proposal. Additionally, everyone within a 25 mile radius of the reactors should be mailed informative materials and comment cards.

Next, I request that an in-depth EIS (in language suited to a layperson audience) regarding the extension of the PBNP includes, but is not limited to, the thorough investigation of the following issues with respect to BOTH reactors:

1. How is fuel used, how is spent fuel removed, and how/where will the waste be stored both onsite and permanently? What is the projected additional accumulation of the extension and what are the impacts of that waste throughout its life cycle on environmental resources? What are the energetic requirements of safe maintenance, the hazards presented by climate events, and the safety measures designed to safeguard both on-site storage and its final transport to the federal facility?

2. How will consequences be addressed from leaks to the catastrophic meltdown scenario for ALL beings and lands subject to said eventsi.e. communities within a 50 mile radius, wildlife, Lake Michigans ecosystems, and the entire Great Lakes watershed? Are there updated evac/treatment plans for all and how will they be funded? How will communities be rehabilitated post-accident? Also, REQUESTED:

Radiation monitoring records from 2017 to present that have not been made available previously to the public.

3. How will the rise in temperature due to cooling water being recirculated into Lake Michigan waters be blob:https://www.fdms.gov/8dd74874-8e91-4122-8135-840e130b2d9c 1/2

3/5/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/8dd74874-8e91-4122-8135-840e130b2d9c mitigated to protect heat sensitive native flora and fauna? How is the area being monitored for temperature, radiation leaks, and any other contaminants generated by aging operations? What measures will be taken to prevent (and address) the problems that will occur secondary to the increasing frequency of our changing climates extreme weather events? How will the natural shoreline, lake bottom, and proximal wildlife be safeguarded from the effects of said potential problems? How will the water source for millions of people be protected when waste is transported to the federal storage facility?

4. What are the advantages of extending the life of these reactors rather than choosing the more readily available and accessible renewable energies in the region (a solar project, for example, has just been submitted for approval in our area)? What is the risk/reward assessment of extending the life of aging nuclear reactors in comparison to those projects? What, if any, financial advantage is there in this proposal for the public/communities in general? Are there more economically, environmentally viable alternatives to bolster our power grid?

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the PBNP extension. Thank you for considering my suggestions.

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/8dd74874-8e91-4122-8135-840e130b2d9c 2/2