NRC-2010-0380, Comment (10) of Marlk M. Giese on Behalf of Self Opposing Point Beach'S, Units 1 and 2, Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate
| ML110130283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/2011 |
| From: | Giese M - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
| References | |
| 75FR77010 00010, NRC-2010-0380 | |
| Download: ML110130283 (1) | |
Text
Mark M Giese 1520 Bryn Mawr Ave Racine, WI 53403 USA m.mk@att.net 01-06-11 Chief, Rules and Directive Branch, RDB TWB-05-BO1M Division of Administrative Services - c Office of Administration V0 U.S. NRC ,* -
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re. Point Beach Extended Power Uprate proposal Federal Register 10 Dec. 2010, Vol. 75, No. 237, page 77010-77017 (7;.
Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301; NRC-2010-0380 -
Cr)
To the Chief, Rules and Directive Branch:
The Federal Register notification for this proposal (<http://edocket.access.gpo.g0v/2010/2010-31085.htiw>)
admits that approval would cause a 17 percent increase in the radioactivity in the gaseous and liquid waste produced by the reactors (p. 77014). But surprisingly, the Environmental Assessment (EA) asserts that no improvements or alternations in current reactor or waste treatment machinery will be necessitated by the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) (p. 77015).
The notice states:
"Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions "The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from the PBNP are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. As discussed above, operation at the proposed EPU conditions will not change the radioactive gaseous and liquid waste management systems' abilities to perform their intended functions.
Also, there would be no change to the radiation monitoring system and procedures used to control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with NRC radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
"Based 'on the above, the offsite radiation dose to members of the public would continue to be within regulftory limits and therefore, would not be significant."
Contrary' to this assertion, any and all exposure to ionizing radiation, internal or external, increases one's chances of cancer, birth defects, immune~system dysfunction and other illnesses.
SSince the operators of thi's reactor complex have already'beeniconvicted of'and~fined $60,000 for providing false in~forrati6n' to federal regulators in 2005, abs lutely nothing claimed by the-licensee in Federal Register notification and the the EA should be believed but rather must be scrutinized with the utmost skepticism.
Becausethe two reactors in question are 40 years Old, have arecord of poor operations and accidents, have been convicied of harassingwhistleblowers anid 6f-leiing to'g6v~rmiit reg'ildtors,'and cannot be expected to operate safely even at low power, the proposed power uprate should be denied with extreme prejudice.
TSincee you .. .. :":J..
.,, , . .o... t,