ML21064A517

Comment (136) of Deanne Lembitz 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

ML21064A517
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/03/2021
From:	Lembitz D - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR7747 00136, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML21064A517 (2)

Text

3/5/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/88368d59-09dd-4166-b66f-4927d3fe41e2 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/88368d59-09dd-4166-b66f-4927d3fe41e2 1/2 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 3/5/21 3:45 PM Received: March 03, 2021 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. klt-p7e1-1po2 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-0141 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-02001 Submitter Information Name: Deanne LembitzMD Address:

Fort Collins, CO, 80521 Email: deannelorene@comcast.net Phone: 9702270966 General Comment During fuel rod changes, some radiation is released. The EIS needs to address how these releases will affect the health of the 40 million people who derive drinking water from the lakes. What are the cumulative effects of these releases?What precautions could be taken and what prevention measures could be implemented to prevent or mitigate such releases. And if not hundred percent preventable, what would the long term affects to this at risk population be.

Likewise what is the short term and cumulative affect of dumping water containing waste heat into the lake over time. What effects will this have on fish, animals, plankton and the plant life of the lake. What effect will it have in particular on endangered species. What effects will it have on the algal and bacterial overgrowth which are already present in the lake. How will these changes in the algal and bacterial blooms which are already occurring affect fish and people and recreation and livelihoods.

I request the EIS address if accidents are likely and how to prevent accidents when the worst embrittled vessel in the country, which is on the outside of this reactor, is subjected to more radiation exposure in the future.

I request that the EIS address the proximity of the plant to the lake. How will the change of lake level and the erosion of the lake affect the reactor.

I request that the EIS address how an earthquake or tornado would affect the plant. And if the population and environment would be safer if the plant was currently decommissioned rather than delaying to the future.

SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Phyllis Clark, Bill Rogers, Kevin Folk, Stacey Imboden, Mary Neely Comment (136)

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

3/5/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/88368d59-09dd-4166-b66f-4927d3fe41e2 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/88368d59-09dd-4166-b66f-4927d3fe41e2 2/2 I think the EIS should address the lack of data from 2017 to present. There has been no reported data on radiation releases from the plant during that time. Once this data is located and analyzed, and if it is discovered they are currently releasing radiation, the EIS of course needs to expand and evaluate where this radiation release is coming from, ways to prevent it now and in the future. It also then would need to evaluate long-term consequences of this radiation.

I think the EIS should address meeting the areas energy needs in alternative ways. This is an old nuclear reactor that was around before advances in energy efficiency, solar, wind and even gas.

Especially because this plants outer vessel is so brittle, the EIS house to address the full Socio economic impact if there is an accident. Specifically, who would compensate the people and the governments for their losses? Would this be a compensation forever? The EIS needs to address the losses to businesses including farmers and fisherman, and losses fire property devaluation and that property tax losses to county and state.

Increasing numbers ofnuclear power plants are charging their customers an extra fee to help keep the nuclear power plants open.

I would request that these fees be investigated. If a fee is needed to keep the power plant open, is there a more cost-effective alternative for energy or energy efficiency?

How is discharge from the plant monitored. How is it reported to the public.

As a nuclear power plants are potentially dangerous for tens of thousands of years, has the EIS assessed events that could occur in the next 1 to 200? In this region these events currently include tornadoes and earthquakes. Fukushima has shown us that disasters we never thought could happen are possible. And Fukushima also is a good source of information for estimation of the cost of these disasters to society, the economy, humanity, and the environment. When Fukushima is used to estimate these costs, does it outweighs the cost to alternative energy sources?

Nuclear Energy plants produce spent fuel which is radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Is the cost of removing, storing, and transporting these in the EIS? If an error, accident, or disaster occurs to the handling or storage of the radioactive spent fuel, will the EIS have estimations for the cost to society, the economy, humanity, and the environment?

Thank you for your attention to these concerns