ML22004A365

Comment (36) of Katherine Bauer 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

ML22004A365
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	01/02/2022
From:	Bauer K - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR62220 00036, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML22004A365 (2)

Text

1/4/22, 3:38 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/1af330e9-ff73-40f3-a152-b9b691626ec2 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 1/4/22 3:37 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: January 02, 2022 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Phyllis Clark, Stacey Imboden, Mary Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. kxx-lljh-rfqc Neely Comment (36)

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-0232 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-24407 Submitter Information Name: Katherine Bauer Address:

Menasha, WI, 54952 Email: kathena77@gmail.com Phone: 920.475.7779 General Comment First I would like to state that I am writing as a lay person who actually lives 40 minutes away from Point Beach Power plant. With that, I am commenting on the application to the NRC to extend the licenses to 2050 and 2053. This extension is of grave concern to myself, my family, and next generations. Below are my concerns

1. Climate Change - It is unacceptable for the NRC to accept Draft Generic Data EIS is from 2007. It is unacceptable to rely on 14 year old data. This section should be using the "AR6 Climate Change 2021" report. Because the current PBNP licenses extends until 2030 and 2033, there is plenty of time to rewrite this section. As I live in this area, I can state, without hesitation, that the climate is changing and Lake Michigan is eroding current lakefronts along with fiercer storms.

2. Alternative Actions - This section is not acceptable as "Small Modular Reactors" do not currently exist nor are they available. Based on the fact that SMRs do not even exist, this writer cannot help but suspect that, due to population density etc, the Point Beach site has been selected as a testing for the development of SMRs which is totally unacceptable. I question why 100% renewable energy sources have not even been mentioned.

3. Lake Michigan - I was surprised to learn that the plant takes in one billion gallons of Lake Michigan water and releases 900 millions gallons of heated water perday. This fact is not addressed in the draft EIS which is unacceptable as even a lay person understands that the Lake will suffer cumulative environmental damage. This is drinking water to many Wisconsinites. And frankly, who will pay for the clean up? Taxpayers?

4. Time Consideration - Why does NextEra and NRC consider "Foreseeable Future" to be only until 2053. Environmental damage does not magically disappear at the end of a signed contract. Nuclear waste needs to be safeguarded for thousands of years. The chemical life cycle does not cease to exist at the contract end date. Then, when the environmental disaster occurs, as it will, companies responsible are off blob:https://www.fdms.gov/1af330e9-ff73-40f3-a152-b9b691626ec2 1/2

1/4/22, 3:38 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/1af330e9-ff73-40f3-a152-b9b691626ec2 the hook for the cost of cleaning up the damage. And while the clean up is litigated in the courts for years, the damage continues while the Lake and citizens of WI live with damage.

5. Safety - The EIS is woefully incorrect by stating that the risk to public health would be small in the event of a severe accident. The modeling used SOARCA is greater than 15 years old. MELCOR from 1991 and last reviewed by the NRC in 2006 is also outdated. SOARCA assesses only risk of cancer deaths vs. cancer morbidity which measures the risk of contracting cancer from excess radiation exposure. Also, this section fails to include estimates of excess deaths due to evacuation from their homes and die from lack of accessible diagnosis and treatment of chronic conditions. Finally, SOARCA does not address accidents related to stored fuel.

In conclusion, the data needs to be updated, actual risks and cost identified before approval of the document. What I would prefer to see, is scraping this extension completely and redevelop the area with solar, wind, storage and energy conservation that have taken place and have a proven track record. There is no reason earthly reason for this extension whatsoever.

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/1af330e9-ff73-40f3-a152-b9b691626ec2 2/2