ML21069A033

Comment (168) of Barry Cramer on Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement; NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

ML21069A033
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/03/2021
From:	Cramer B - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Administration
References
86FR7747 00168, NRC-2020-0277
Download: ML21069A033 (1)

Text

3/9/2021 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/3d314405-19ab-4ffa-8bd6-e97b5915117e SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 3/9/21 1:42 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: March 03, 2021 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Phyllis Clark, Bill Rogers, Kevin Folk, Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. klu-55ho-pwts Stacey Imboden, Mary Neely Comments Due: March 03, 2021 Comment (168) Submission Type: Web Publication Date:2/1/2021 Citation: 86 FR 7747 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-2020-0277-0001 Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement; NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Document: NRC-2020-0277-DRAFT-0173 Comment on FR Doc # 2021-02001 Submitter Information Name: Barry Cramer Address:

Pepper Pike, OH, 44124 Email: barryrcramer@gmail.com Phone: 2164407754 General Comment The environmental impact statement on Point Beach nuclear power plant brings up many issues which I would like to have addressed at the scope hearing.

First the radiation from a nuclear power plant. Periodically with routine maintenance and refueling, there will be releases. In case of an accident or a natural disaster or sabotage or terrorism, there could be even larger releases. For all of these releases how are these monitored? Where are these reported? The short term ( acute and cumulative ) and long term effects of these releases need to be evaluated and made known to the public in the EIS. The effects on wildlife, lake life, humans, the drinking water of the 50 million supplied by the lakes, livelihood of the fisherman, tourist industry, and farmers who rely on this water, need to be included in this.

Secondly The EIS needs to include evacuation plans in the event of a disaster. We know disasters happen in nuclear power plants. How will the population at risk of such a disaster be informed that they are at risk and how they will they be educated about evacuation plans?

Thirdly, alternatives need to be evaluated before licensing this plant. If this plant is not licensed, would there be other ways to meet the population's energy needs? Would they present as high a danger to the workers, to the population and to the surrounding environment? Would they cost less to operate and then decommission in the future than just decommissioning PBNPP (Including the cost for storing nuclear waste for thousands of years, the fees added on to utility bills for maintaining the plant, maintenance of this old plant).

Thank you.

blob:https://www.fdms.gov/3d314405-19ab-4ffa-8bd6-e97b5915117e 1/1