ML23005A201

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:58, 20 January 2023 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comment (9) of Kathryn Barnes on Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Palisades Nuclear Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML23005A201
Person / Time
Site: Palisades Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/27/2022
From: Barnes K
Don't Waste Michigan
To:
Office of Administration
References
87FR52598 00009, NRC-2022-0158
Download: ML23005A201 (1)


Text

1/4/23, 2:43 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 As of: 1/4/23, 2:42 PM E-RIDS=ADM-03 Received: December 27, 2022 PUBLIC SUBMISSION ADD: Marlayna Doell, Status: Pending_Post Sarah Achten, Pam Tracking No. lc6-xass-77cw Buzdygon-Menefee, Mary Neely Comments Due: December 27, 2022 Comment (9) Submission Type: API Publication Date:

8/26/2022 Docket: NRC-2022-0158 Citation: 87 FR 52598 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC Palisades Nuclear Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Comment On: NRC-2022-0158-0001 Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Post- Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Document: NRC-2022-0158-DRAFT-0009 Comment on FR Doc # 2022-18387 Submitter Information Name: Kathryn Barnes Address:

MI, Email: Greenwoodsart@msn.com General Comment NRC - To Whom It May Concern I am concerned about certain features of the plan.

For starters, large components should not be put on barges and sent across the great lakes. It is far too risky and the dredging to accommodate this will certainly mar the lake, the beach, and potentially contaminate the lake with radioactive particles and barge accident spills. Storms come up fast on the lakes. There are shipwrecks at the bottom of the lakes but this is different. Far worseRadioactive materials should not be barged onto water.

Another disconcerting thing is the lack of clarity about where contamination will be stored. What about cask 4? What about tritium from leaking piping under the reactor?

And what is the reasoning behind the assumption that there are no longer endangered species in the area?

Why not? Did Palisades contribute to their demise or will decommissioning (if they do still exist in the area?) It is important not to dismiss life forms so easily. Doing so only exhibits a callousness towards life that is dangerous to future life. Just because there are no recent reporting of a species does not mean it isnt there.

As you know this mess of radioactive waste will last far beyond our lifetime. Every aspect of decommissioning should be carefully and meticulously done so no accidents or intentional dumping occur. The NRC must be on site and vigilant as promised. Paperwork viewing is not enough.

Think of our childrens childrens children.the people of the future.

No contamination or risks.

I think the current plan is not sufficient, relying on permits that no environmental scientist would approve.

What is plan B? Can we get a plan less cavalier and without barges? One that will tell exactly what they will do with the mess they are being paid to clean up? One that does not involve contamination risks?

Most Sincerely blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b 1/2

1/4/23, 2:43 PM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b Kathryn Barnes Dont Waste Michigan Sherwood Chapter blob:https://www.fdms.gov/fa128732-0e21-4f1c-a678-851a75f96d4b 2/2