ML23005A201
| ML23005A201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/2022 |
| From: | Barnes K Don't Waste Michigan |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 87FR52598 00009, NRC-2022-0158 | |
| Download: ML23005A201 (1) | |
Text
1/4/23, 2:43 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b 1/2 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 1/4/23, 2:42 PM Received: December 27, 2022 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lc6-xass-77cw Comments Due: December 27, 2022 Submission Type: API Docket: NRC-2022-0158 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Palisades Nuclear Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Comment On: NRC-2022-0158-0001 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Document: NRC-2022-0158-DRAFT-0009 Comment on FR Doc # 2022-18387 Submitter Information Name: Kathryn Barnes Address:
MI, Email:Greenwoodsart@msn.com General Comment NRC - To Whom It May Concern I am concerned about certain features of the plan.
For starters, large components should not be put on barges and sent across the great lakes. It is far too risky and the dredging to accommodate this will certainly mar the lake, the beach, and potentially contaminate the lake with radioactive particles and barge accident spills. Storms come up fast on the lakes. There are shipwrecks at the bottom of the lakes but this is different. Far worseRadioactive materials should not be barged onto water.
Another disconcerting thing is the lack of clarity about where contamination will be stored. What about cask 4? What about tritium from leaking piping under the reactor?
And what is the reasoning behind the assumption that there are no longer endangered species in the area?
Why not? Did Palisades contribute to their demise or will decommissioning (if they do still exist in the area?) It is important not to dismiss life forms so easily. Doing so only exhibits a callousness towards life that is dangerous to future life. Just because there are no recent reporting of a species does not mean it isnt there.
As you know this mess of radioactive waste will last far beyond our lifetime. Every aspect of decommissioning should be carefully and meticulously done so no accidents or intentional dumping occur. The NRC must be on site and vigilant as promised. Paperwork viewing is not enough.
Think of our childrens childrens children.the people of the future.
No contamination or risks.
I think the current plan is not sufficient, relying on permits that no environmental scientist would approve.
What is plan B? Can we get a plan less cavalier and without barges? One that will tell exactly what they will do with the mess they are being paid to clean up? One that does not involve contamination risks?
Most Sincerely SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Marlayna Doell, Sarah Achten, Pam Buzdygon-Menefee, Mary Neely Comment (9)
Publication Date:
8/26/2022 Citation: 87 FR 52598
1/4/23, 2:43 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b 2/2 Kathryn Barnes Dont Waste Michigan Sherwood Chapter