ML25154A621
| ML25154A621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/30/2025 |
| From: | Kosowicz A - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2020-0277, 90FR16008 00004 | |
| Download: ML25154A621 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 6/3/25, 2:12 PM Received: May 30, 2025 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. mba-ctlt-7b6m Comments Due: June 02, 2025 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2020-0277 Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Comment On: NRC-2020-0277-0245 NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Second Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0246 Comment on FR Doc # 2025-06438 Submitter Information Name: Aleks Kosowicz Address:
Abrams, WI, 54101 Email:guerillawordfare@yahoo.com General Comment
>>>>>>>>Public Comment RE: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Second Draft Report for Comment, dated April 2025 - Docket ID NRC-2020-0277<<<<<<<<
I thank the NRC for accepting public comments. Nuclear has long been promoted as 'clean' energy in the public eye, but the reality is that it quietly poses a greater threat than even the air and water pollution from
'dirtier' sources. Its radioactive nature presents a permanent danger that continues to escalate as we kick the can down the road for our future generations. Meanwhile, it also disrupts the surrounding natural resources and biodiversity, requiring constant efforts to mitigate heat in a world that is already warming too quickly for our own good. Factor in ageing reactors with the increasingly unpredictable weather patterns triggered by that warming climate, and the risks posed by PBN far outweigh any proposed benefit--especially for those of us who live in its vicinity.
Though this second EIS draft seeks to pacify the worries over said risks, it fails to consider sufficiently a multitude of variables that must thoroughly be addressed before further extending the service of units that have already exceeded their expiration date.
The escalating frequency of extreme weather events and volatility of our natural and political worlds have already and will continue to test Point Beach site and building stability and its operational and safety capacities. For example, Lake Michigan water levels surged from a record low, over the course of just seven years' time, to a record high in 2020. This EIS shows little evidence that the best, most current climate change projections have been explored; it must include a thorough and comprehensive review of 6/3/25, 2:13 PM NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0246.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0246.html 1/2 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Kevin Folk; Antoinette Walker-Smith, Mary Neely Comment (4)
Publication Date:
4/16/2025 Citation: 90 FR 16008
the climate parameters expected from 2030 until 2053 for reactor operation--and decades beyond that for storage of high-level nuclear waste on-site.
We have zero margin for error here: it needs to acknowledge that our projections cannot be certain of future conditions and that uncertainty calls for extreme caution. Can all aspects of this facility, including waste storage, withstand damage or disruption from weather events, flooding, and erosion...from martial or terroristic attack?
Point Beach reactor 2 is already one of the nation's most embrittled--8 years beyond its embrittlement screening limit--and vulnerable to Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) in the event of a power mishap when cool water is injected into the reactor vessel to cool the reactor core and prevent a meltdown. The potential for increased cancer rates and the contamination of millions of people's drinking water should a cracked reactor vessel leak radiation must factor into the decision to renew the license.
These health risks to our bodies and our environment are very real, and they must be considered 'need to know.' Populations surrounding PBN deserve an account of more than what has been detailed in this EIS, including radiation exposure and tritium level risks to women, fetuses, infants, children, and teens, and how and when and where these threats are measured in the air and water on and around the site. We deserve to know the impacts of rising ambient temperatures in Lake Michigan waters from thermal effluents on the levels of bacteria and algae and their threat to every species (including our own and especially those that are endangered) occupying the ecosystem. In an age of water scarcity, it must also be estimated how much more of the water itself will be required to continue cooling the system.
Even should PBN perform flawlessly throughout the course of its life, there is no safe, permanent containment of nuclear waste. As of 2017, the facility has generated 965 metric tons of waste; by 2033, there will be an estimated 1,242 metric tons of waste in dry cask storage. Once again, the public has the right to know how this storage is being monitored and repaired and strengthened and what safeguards have been put in place to protect it in the event of electrical outage, extreme weather, or military strike.
Once more, I am grateful for the opportunity to comment regarding this second draft EIS, as the decision to prolong the employment of the PBN facility is of monumental concern. It is in the best interest of all life, now and into the future, to be as critical of this proposal as possible; it is most definitely, in this case, better to be safe than sorry.
6/3/25, 2:13 PM NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0246.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0246.html 2/2