ML22004A358

Comment (29) of Pamela Richard 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

ML22004A358
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/31/2021
From:	Richard P - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR62220 00029, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML22004A358 (2)

Text

1/4/22, 3:15 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/22428742-1e65-4fdd-905f-f25e50601a4a SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 1/4/22 3:13 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: December 31, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Phyllis Clark, Stacey Imboden, Mary Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kxu-x8ax-fcdn Neely Comment (29)

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-0225 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-24407 Submitter Information Name: Pamela Richard Address:

Milwaukee, WI, 53208 Email: pamrichard35@gmail.com Phone: 510-542-7688 General Comment Wisconsin residents need to receive serious consideration to our objections to the renewal of the licenses for Point Beach Reactors 1 and 2.

The reactors are of significant risk of embrittlement due to their age.

Of critical concern is the generation of nuclear radioactive waste next to our drinking water source- over 1,000 metric tons of nuclear waste are stored onsite at PBNP-on the shoreline of Lake Michigan with no permanent waste storage site available in the US.

Concerning climate change, It is unacceptable for the NRC to present fourteen-year-old data as a sound scientific basis for projecting what climate conditions will be at PBNP 32 years into the future. 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.

Alternatives Actions to be considered is completely inadequate for two reasons: 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. There must be at least one Alternative Action plan based on 100% renewable energy sources.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors s aren't a viable source of electricity, as they require decades of research and development.

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 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/22428742-1e65-4fdd-905f-f25e50601a4a 1/2

1/4/22, 3:15 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/22428742-1e65-4fdd-905f-f25e50601a4a Lake Michigan now and in the foreseeable future.

Lastly, Being a vacationer in this area, I worry about a possible accident or release of radioactive materials. The EIS contains an inadequate assessment of risk to human health in the event of a severe nuclear accident at PBNP (particularly a reactor core meltdown).

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/22428742-1e65-4fdd-905f-f25e50601a4a 2/2