ML25121A115
| ML25121A115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/2025 |
| From: | Public Commenter Public Commenter |
| To: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS |
| NRC/NMSS/DREFS | |
| References | |
| 90FR16008 | |
| Download: ML25121A115 (4) | |
Text
From:
Maximus Smith <msmit143@asu.edu>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 29, 2025 1:36 AM To:
Subject:
[External_Sender] EIS Draft Comment Attachments:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 EIS Comment.pdf Hello Mr. Folk, Below Is my commentary on the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and 2 Licence Renewal EIS.
Federal Register Notice:
90FR16008 Comment Number:
1 Mail Envelope Properties (CAGY5tStQ8pvVFU=pNq_nWBPaM7u6_73aPToRbZGn44buqv-BFw)
Subject:
[External_Sender] EIS Draft Comment Sent Date:
4/29/2025 1:36:21 AM Received Date:
4/29/2025 1:36:46 AM From:
Maximus Smith Created By:
msmit143@asu.edu Recipients:
"Kevin Folk" <Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 112 4/29/2025 1:36:46 AM Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 EIS Comment.pdf 84698 Options Priority:
Normal Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
4/28/2025 Kevin Folk Stakeholder Input on the License Renewal EIS for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 To Members of the Committee,
I am grateful for your willingness to offer the chance for me to provide my input on this proposal. According to my understanding, my stake in this project derived primarily from my potential interest in conducting biological research and study in regions affected by this project.
I believe that the continued operation of this nuclear reactor is an ideal outcome, serving an integral role in maintaining abstinence from carbon emitting technologies.
Despite the reactor having probably small impacts on the environment, as seen in page 3-5, I believe the full scope of environmental hazards has not been fully considered in this EIS.
The failure to mention reactor pressure vessel embrittlement is quite concerning. I believe that if an extension is to be provided, It must come with the stipulation that work is done to remedy the embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessels. There are technologies available which may enable the reactor vessel to undergo annealing in order to effect repairs, and improve its safety. I also implore you to consider inquiring about the life expectancy of other backup infrastructures, such as the diesel generators used for emergency power provision for reactor cooling.
I would also request an analysis of the probability of failure due to embrittlement in the event of an emergency may go far to facilitate discussion and the creation of suitable alternatives that enable safe and prolonged operation of the plant. I also ask that the EIS be revised to consider and potentially propose measures to address this concern.
Again, I sincerely thank you for giving the community the opportunity to contribute their insight and concerns regarding the operation of this infrastructure.
Sincerely, Maximus Smith P.S.
Technology for consideration:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rosatom-launches-annealing-technology-for-VVE R-100