ML22004A352

Comment (23) of Pamela Nelson on Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Nexteraenergy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2

ML22004A352
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/30/2021
From:	Nelson P - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR62220 00023, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML22004A352 (2)

Text

1/4/22, 2:33 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/897f5487-65db-46ca-b6ed-0bb82a17ce48 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 1/4/22 2:32 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: December 30, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Phyllis Clark, Stacey Imboden, Mary Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kxt-m832-1ris Neely Comment (23) Comments Due: January 03, 2022 Publication Date: Submission Type: Web 11/9/2021 Citation: 86 FR 62220 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-2020-0277-0194 NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Document: NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0219 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-24407 Submitter Information Name: Pamela Nelson Address:

Warner Spgs, CA, 92086 Email: pamela05n@yahoo.com Phone: 9517672324 General Comment NRC Public Participation Deficiencies; public participation is difficult because:

- true public concerns like climate change, contaminated water and air, etc. are not addressed so the public isn't able to comment or understand the regulatory aspects well.

- Easy zoom workshops should be given for public to ask questions CLIMATE CHANGE

2. It is worth noting that the section on climate change needs to be completely rewritten so that it is based on the most current data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC 2021 report.

- This report needs updating with current information

- The most recent IPPC Report referenced in the climate change section of NRCs Draft Generic EIS is from 2007. It is unacceptable.

- The immediate and imminent impacts of climate change on operations at PBNP are new categories of consideration for an EIS, and much of the science and observed changes are recent phenomenon, which underscores why the most current data must be used and why this topic must receive a fresh and new appraisal of conditions. Fourteen year old data is not acceptable.

- The number of extreme weather events has increased dramatically in the last decade.

- Lake level fluctuations and larger storm surges contribute to an increase in erosion along the shores of Lake Michigan, threatening reactor operations.

Meanwhile, over 1,000 metric tons of nuclear waste are stored onsite at PBNP, on the shoreline of Lake Michigan. Lake level is a huge concern ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS blob:https://www.fdms.gov/897f5487-65db-46ca-b6ed-0bb82a17ce48 1/2

1/4/22, 2:33 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/897f5487-65db-46ca-b6ed-0bb82a17ce48

3. Alternatives Actions is completely inadequate.

If the license at PBNP is not renewed, the alternatives considered do not include the use of wind power, either onshore or offshore, or energy conservation.

- Two of the three proposed alternatives require implementation of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), reactors which do not exist and are not currently available.

- SMRs do not exist as a viable source of electricity.

- There must be at least one Alternative Action plan based on 100% renewable.

LAKE MICHIGAN

4. Environmental damage to the ecosystem in Lake Michigan related to intake of almost one billion gallons of Lake Michigan per day, and the discharge of over 900 million gallons of heated water (24 degree F above ambient lake temperature) daily from the reactors is not scientifically addressed in the draft EIS.

- Water intake kills fish, fish larvae, fish eggs and other aquatic organisms. The NRCs EIS authors must include updated quantitative data on PBNPs damage to the aquatic ecosystem and cumulative effects on Lake Michigan now and in the foreseeable future.

- Heated water discharge from PBNPs once through cooling system is not the Best Technology Available (BTA). Installing cooling towers. Thermal pollution is not addressed adequately TIME CONSIDERATION

5. The foreseeable future was considered by NextEra and the NRC to be only until 2053.

Radioactive waste needs to be safeguarded for thousands of years. Cumulative effects and extended effects are also disregarded.

SAFETY

6. The EIS contains an inadequate assessment of risk to human health.

Severe nuclear accidents at PBNP (particularly if unmitigated, ie. a reactor core meltdown) must be considered.

- SOARCA does not address accidents related to stored fuel.

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/897f5487-65db-46ca-b6ed-0bb82a17ce48 2/2