ML11300A010

Comment (11) of Randall Kezar, on NRC-2010-0206-0013, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 46 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for Li

ML11300A010
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/23/2011
From:	Kezar R - No Known Affiliation
To:	Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch
References
76FR47612 00011, NRC-2010-0206-0013
Download: ML11300A010 (1)

Text

Page 1 of 1 PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: October 24, 2011 Received:

October 23, 2011 Status: Pending Post Tracking No. 80f59dd7 Comments Due: October 26, 2011 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2010-0206 Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Facility Operating License Comment On: NRC-2010-0206-0013 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 46 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Seabrook Station, Unit I Document:

NRC-2010-0206-DRAFT-002 I Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19875 Submitter Information

--Name: Randall Kezar Address: 134 Main St. ".. -Kingston, NH, 03848 General Comment With respect to the degrading condition of Seabrook during the next four decades: 6. If the Gulf of Maine offshore wind power project can be shown to make the Seabrook station non-competitive, will the NRC nevertheless grant a renewal license? Why is this project not mentioned and analyzed in the draft document?7. Should not all currently known safety and operational problems be actually diagnosed and fixed before a renewal license be considered?

8. Should not the evacuation plans be reevaluated?

9. Where and how will the radioactive waste which will be generated during the proposed additional decades of operation be stored? Will the Seabrook station secure sufficiently funds to store them for a very significant period of time. Since there is no foreseeable permanent storage plan, should not the NRC cease relicensing all reactors?10. Since operating the Seabrook station beyond it's lifetime design date will increase safety risks, should not the Seabrook station carry a correspondingly much greater financial liability?

11. What are the probabilities that the increased reactor metal brittleness will force the Seabrook reactor to cease operation?

What is the probability that the Seabrook reactor will be free of such brittleness problems up to 2050? If the Seabrook reactor is not likely to run until 2050 shouldn't the NRC refuse a relicense?

S61d25§ $~4//~~)r~

4~ ~ A/ -P/5/7A&K3 ~4~>?~- 2 https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectd=0900006480f59dd...

10/24/2011