ML22006A111

Comment (165) E-mail Regarding Point Beach Draft SEIS

ML22006A111
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	01/02/2022
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
NRC/NMSS
References
86FR62220
Download: ML22006A111 (2)

Text

From:

Abigail Mapes <abigail.mapes@gmail.com>

Sent:

Sunday, January 2, 2022 9:16 PM To:

PointBeach-SLRSEIS Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Comments for Docket ID: NRC-2020-0277-0194

Hello, I am concerned about the environmental impacts of granting the renewal permit for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant and urge that this permit be denied based on the draft environmental impact statement.

There are a number of concern raised by the EIS:

-Age and integrity: reactor 2 is known to be embrittled. The risk of cracking alone is a huge environmental and health risk which would contaminate the air, water, soil and contaminate drinking water for 10 Million people at a time when water security is becoming a greater threat across the country. This would also pose a risk to non-human organisms.

-Toxic Waste: Toxic, radioactive waste is being stored and generated on an eroding shoreline. Even if nuclear waste is moved by rail, it is a risk for contamination in the event of a train derailment (not infrequent) or weather/seismic event at the destination.

-Water temperature: These nuclear reactors are old and outdated and were not built with cooling towers. This project would not be considered if it were a new build without the cooling towers. The heat discharge into Lake Michigan has known impacts on fish larvae and phytoplankton, which are important for ecosystem stability.

-Cost: The energy costs are higher for consumers by operating this plant longer vs. adapting to cleaner, renewable energy. Energy burden on customers is a serious consideration, confounded by wage stagnation and inflation.

Alternatives to running the outdated, aging nuclear reactors should be prioritized for health, environmental, and consumer cost burdens. Renewable, clean energy is the way Wisconsin moves forward. I would hate to see the repercussions listed above, and hate to see Point Beach State Park and the Ice Age Trail there contaminated with radiation due to the continued use of a nuclear reactors built over 50 years ago, showing their age through embrittlement, and extended for use double their intended lifespan.

Sincerely, Ms. Abigail Mapes Wisconsinite, Hiker, Ice Age Trail Enthusiast 7358 Old Sauk Rd, Madison, WI 53717 Abigail

Federal Register Notice:

86FR62220 Comment Number:

165 Mail Envelope Properties (CAOrTCB+T=J_1C2KLNZKpbpZMikHVgbuskGLVH+UkGgqPxuctBw)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Comments for Docket ID: NRC-2020-0277-0194 Sent Date:

1/2/2022 9:16:12 PM Received Date:

1/2/2022 9:16:40 PM From:

Abigail Mapes Created By:

abigail.mapes@gmail.com Recipients:

"PointBeach-SLRSEIS Resource" <PointBeach-SLRSEIS.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2082 1/2/2022 9:16:40 PM Options Priority:

Normal Return Notification:

No Reply Requested:

No Sensitivity:

Normal Expiration Date: