ML24212A120

Comment (62) of George Relias on Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant, Unit 1

ML24212A120
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	07/29/2024
From:	Relias G - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
89FR53659 00062, NRC-2024-0076
Download: ML24212A120 (1)

Text

7/29/24, 2:00 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/0a90999e-b640-41b2-bf6b-4c328f600cc0

SUNSI Review Complete As of: 7/29/24, 2:00 PM Template=ADM-013 Received: July 29, 2024 E-RIDS=ADM-03 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONADD: Laura Willingham, Status: Pending_Post Mary Richmond, Antoinette Tracking No. lz7-899a-tlyi Walker-Smith, Marlayna Doell, Mary Neely Comments Due: July 29, 2024 Comment (62) Submission Type: API

Publication Date:6/27/2024 Docket: NRC-2024-0076 Citation: 89 FR 53659 Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant, Unit 1

Comment On: NRC-2024-0076-0001 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment

Document: NRC-2024-0076-DRAFT-0062 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-14112

Submitter Information

Name: George Relias Address:

Covert, MI, 49043 Email: grelias@att.net Phone: 6306385104

General Comment

please see attachment in opposition of the PNP

Attachments

PNP no start letter

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/0a90999e-b640-41b2-bf6b-4c328f600cc0 1/1 George Relias 79299 Ravine Way Covert, MI 49043

July 29, 2024

RE: Palisades Nuclear Plant

I am opposed to the reopening of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant due to the inherent risks associated with nuclear energy to the neighboring community. Should the power plant re -open it should be with the appropriate review and rigorous safety procedures developed for such an unorthodox reopening a s outlined below.

I appeal to the NRC to employ its Congressionally -mandated oversight authority over PNP to conduct a thorough and rigorous environmental review of Holtecs request to restart the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. The NRC and DOE should require an environmenta l review that is at least as comprehensive as what the NRC requires for an operating plant applying to renew its license, known as subsequent license renewal (SLR). The NRCs recent rulemaking on the scope of the review required for SLR confirms that Sec tion 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act, implemented through 10 CFR Part 51, requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The environmental review of Holtecs application must do at least that - and even more - because of the unique risks arising from restarting PNP.

Holtecs requested restart license present environmental risks and unknowns greater than an operating plant that seeks an extension of an existing license. For years, PNPs operator ran the plant knowing it was on a schedule to shut down permanently. PNPs operator deferred maintenance and investment based on this timeline. Simply stated, it operated the plant as a short-timer, not as if it would need to be on line through 2031, the expiration date of its then existing license. The NRC granted waivers for safety upgrades that otherwise would have been required but for the imminent shut down. An additional risk here is the requested issuance of a new license to an entity that has never operated a nuclear power plant. If the EPA mandates a rigorous EIS when determining whether an operating plant with an experienced licensee and ongoing investment and NRC oversight should be allowed to continue operating beyond its license term, shouldnt the EPA - and the NRC and DOE - require at least an EIS when a plant that has been shut down and not subject to the same level of review as an operating plant seeks to restart?

Holtecs request presents to the NRC and DOE an important and novel environmental impact question: can this plant, with its history of financial distress, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and degradation from being out of operation, be restarted and operated safely without causing unacceptable risk to the immediate community, environment and the cherished resources of the Great Lakes? Answering this question requires the highest level of environmental review - an EIS that is directed to the uniqu e circumstances of this plant and the unprecedented request before the NRC to restart a permanently shut down nuclear facility.

I and my family are NOT in favor of restarting this power plant due to the potential risks associated with nuclear power and the checkered operational history. To restart this power plant is a mistake.

Sincerely,

George J. Relias Neighbor