ML22004A354

Comment (25) of James Conningham 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

ML22004A354
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/30/2021
From:	Cunningham J - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR62220 00025, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML22004A354 (2)

Text

1/4/22, 2:55 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/3b23c782-acf6-4fba-b487-da1b3d5e7ab2 SUNI Review Complete As of: 1/4/22 2:53 PM Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: December 30, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Phyllis Clark, Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kxt-r1ec-s5rj Stacey Imboden, Mary Neely Comments Due: January 03, 2022 Comment (25) Submission Type: Web Publication Date:

11/9/2021 Docket: NRC-2020-0277 Citation: 86 FR 62220 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-0221 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-24407 Submitter Information Name: James Cunningham Address:

Powell, OH, 43065 Email: jimc.guitarz@gmail.com Phone: 6143260730 General Comment This is a continuation of my previous comment. I am quite displeased and dismayed that the character limit is only 5000. This seems to me a direct and deliberate attempt to silence educated Americans seeking to participate in a meaningful manner regarding our very safety.

Impacts on Lake Michigan are inadequately described in this document.

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, at 24 degree F above ambient lake temperature, daily from the reactors is not scientifically addressed in the draft EIS.

This aspect must be addressed in a thorough revision of this document through the lense of current climate change data.

Water intake kills fish, fish larvae, fish eggs and other aquatic organisms including micro-organisms on which the web of life in the lake rely. The document states that these impacts to aquatic resources are considered to be small, but I am unable to believe that assessment. The temperature impacts alone are enough to cause a failure in the interconnection of lake species and could lead to large scale fish kills.

Heated water discharge from PBNPs once through cooling system is not the Best Technology Available (BTA). Installing cooling towers, long the industry standard, would reduce use of lake water by 85%. I do not see anywhere in this document that such an implementation is required or even recommended.

Under Special Status Species and Habitats it is stated that there would be, No effect on essential fish habitat. As I stated above, the impacts on water temperature alone are quantitatively deleterious to marine life. It is well-known that water temperatures in the Great Lakes are increasing due to climate blob:https://www.fdms.gov/3b23c782-acf6-4fba-b487-da1b3d5e7ab2 1/2

1/4/22, 2:55 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/3b23c782-acf6-4fba-b487-da1b3d5e7ab2 change, and that those changes are harming native species while favoring invasive species. The NRCs EIS authors must include updated quantitative data on PBNPs damage to the aquatic ecosystem and cumulative effects on Lake Michigan now and within the duration parameters of the proposed license renewal operating periods.

Under Environmental Justice it is stated that, No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Yet, these old, worn-out units are some of the most deteriorated units in the US. It is not a matter of if they will fail, but when they do fail that these populations will be most affected. In fact, this document contains an egregiously inadequate assessment of risks to human health in the event of a severe, and likely, nuclear accident at PBNP. In the meantime, the dangers of the waste stored there remain. That this document contains the following statement indicates to me that it was produced by industry insiders with no regard for public safety and only a concern for industry profits at the expense of public safety:

As a result, the calculated risks of public health consequences of severe accidents modeled in SOARCA are very small. P. 355/369 In summary, this document is inadequate at best, and represents a danger to the public as it indicates that the NRC is no longer a government agency tasked with keeping the public safe, but instead just an arm of a criminal and careless industry seeking profits at any cost to the public. It contains, and bases conclusions on, vastly outdated information/data, it minimizes obvious impacts in favor of industry propaganda, and it fails to assess viable energy alternatives in any meaningful manner.

Thank you for considering my comments.

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/3b23c782-acf6-4fba-b487-da1b3d5e7ab2 2/2