ML24212A133

Comment (73) of Charlotte Quinn on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, and Holtec Palisades, LLC; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare an Environmental Assessment

ML24212A133
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	07/29/2024
From:	Quinn C - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
NRC-2024-0076, 89FR53659 00073
Download: ML24212A133 (1)

Text

7/30/24, 8:07 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/1ffad195-0163-4c43-8a2d-5903136e7439

SUNSI Review Complete As of: 7/30/24, 8:07 AM Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: July 29, 2024 ADD: Laura Willingham, Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSIONMary Richmond, Antoinette Tracking No. lz7-etdv-nctd Walker-Smith, Marlayna Doell, Mary Neely Comments Due: July 29, 2024

Comment (73) 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-0073 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-14112

Submitter Information

Name: Charlotte Quinn Address:

Covert, MI, 49043 Email: charlottequinn@mac.com Phone: 3173135999

General Comment

Subject:

Concerns Regarding the Restart of Palisades Nuclear Power Plant

Dear Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

I am writing to express my serious concerns about the proposed restart of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. Since its opening in 1971, Palisades has been plagued with significant problems and violations.

Notably, in 2012, it was classified as the worst-performing reactor in the nation. After 50 years of operation, the plant was finally shuttered in May 2022, a week and a half earlier than planned due to a control rod failure, which is essential for safe operation.

Even the NRC has previously declared Palisades as one of the four worst-performing plants in the country. Given this history, propping up a damaged nuclear power plant that has leaked in the past and has already been shut down is a misguided use of state funds. When private companies decided this facility should be shut down and proceeded with doing so, spending taxpayer dollars to resuscitate an outdated and dangerous nuclear power plant is fiscally irresponsible.

Bringing a nuclear plant back online has never been done in the U.S., and Holtec International, the company seeking to restart Palisades, has a poor track record. Holtec is better known for decommissioning nuclear plants, not operating them, and has never held a reactor operating license.

Nuclear energy is risky, dirty, dangerous, slow, and expensive. Instead, our state should be pursuing the cleanest, quickest, safest, and cheapest energy options available. Saddling our state with the high costs

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/1ffad195-0163-4c43-8a2d-5903136e7439 1/2 7/30/24, 8:07 AM blob:https  ://www.fdms .gov /1ffad195-0163-4c 43-8a2d-5903136e7439 and dangers of nuclear ener gy is unnecessary to ensure Michigan continues to have reliable power .

Palisades hasn t been providing power for two years now . Weve repeatedly heard that companies considering investment in Michigan have passed on our state due to the lack of functional public transit.

Is this really where we should be investing our resources?

Consider how many homes could be insulated, solarized, and converted to non-fossil fuel heating sources with the $300 million, let alone the $1.5 billion from federal funds, proposed for this project. Think of the jobs we could create with these investments.

Rather than doubling down on this risky plant, we should be:

Enabling new transmission capacity throughout our region; Expanding and expediting investments in lar ge-scale solar and wind ener gy installations; Developing more utility-scale, residential, and commercial storage capacity to provide ener gy during high demand times, further stabilize the grid, and reduce costs for residents; Ramping up ef ficiency and demand response programs to help residents and businesses conserve ener gy ,

save money , and reduce peak demand; Removing barriers and restrictions on distributed and community-owned ener gy generation.

We should seek the best and most innovative solutions for Michigan s power needs. For example, Green Mountain Power in Vermont taps into homeowners batteries during peak times, lowering the cost and peak demand of electricity for all customers in their service area.

Many independent voices and studies show that with a combination of renewables, ener gy ef ficiency ,

storage, demand response, and distributed generation, we can meet our ener gy needs without nuclear . This proposal is a waste of taxpayer money . According to the independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report, nuclear ener gy meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better , cheaper , and faster .

As rising Great Lakes water levels, storm sur ges, and heavy rainfall erode coastal and inland flood defenses, Palisades and other nuclear plants storing waste along our waterways are not a safe bet in a changing climate. Ef forts to build and upgrade plants resistant to climate change will significantly increase the already considerable expense involved in building, operating, and decommissioning nuclear plants. This should prompt a substantial reassessment of nuclear s role in helping Michigan and the country reach net zero emissions.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Sincerely ,

Charlotte Quinn

blob:https  ://www.fdms .gov /1ffad195-0163-4c 43-8a2d-5903136e7439 2/2