Help Protect the Great Lakes Against Radioactive Risks! Please make environmental scoping comments, Wed., Feb. 17, 1-3pm Central (2-4pm Eastern), at NRC's mtg. re: 80 years of proposed operations at the dangerously embrittled Pt. Beach nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan's WI shore

NRC file photo of Point Beach nuclear power plant Units 1 & 2, located on the Lake Michigan shore in Two Rivers, WI, near Manitowoc.Dear Friends and Colleagues in Wisconsin, and beyond,

Help protect the irreplaceable Great Lakes (21% of Planet Earth's surface fresh water, and 84% of North America's!) against radioactive risks. On Wednesday, February 17, from 1-3pm Central Time (2-4pm Eastern Time), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a public comment meeting re: environmental scoping for NextEra Nuclear's (formerly Florida Power & Light) proposal to operate the two-reactor Point Beach nuclear power plant, in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, not for 40 years, not for 60 years, but for a whopping, and highly risky 80 years. Point Beach Unit 2, for one thing, has the single worst embrittled reactor pressure vessel (RPV) of any Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) in the country. With decades of additional neutron radiation bombardment, the risk of a pressurized thermal shock (PTS) through-wall fracture, core meltdown, and catastrophic release of hazardous radioactivity, will only worsen. And decades of additional operations would mean many hundreds, even thousands, of additional metric tons of highly radioactive waste generated, for which we still have no safe, sound solution -- a further curse on all future generations. There would also be additional decades of "routine releases of radiation" into the environment, which are harmful to children and other living things. Point Beach even lacks cooling towers, which means all its waste heat is dumped into Lake Michigan. As two-thirds of the heat generated by splitting atoms at the 3,600 Megawatt-thermal nuclear power plant is waste, that has meant large-scale ecological impacts on the natural ecosystem of Lake Michigan for the past half-century, and now they want to keep on going for another three decades! All this to continue gouging Wisconsin ratepayers on their electric bills, when cheaper, safer, cleaner wind power, as but one example, is abundant and ready to go in the greater region, but for the lack of political will. Please read on below for how to join the meeting and make comments. Thanks to Hannah Mortensen, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Wisconsin, for the very valuable web posts below, and to Michael Keegan of Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes and Don't Waste Michigan, for additional helpful links below that. Please spread the word, and thank you for anything you can do to help us protect the Great Lakes -- drinking water supply for 40 million people in 8 U.S. states, 2 Canadian provinces, and a large number of Native American/First Nations! When it comes to radioactive risks on the Great Lakes, "We all live downstream!"

For an Atomic Reactor-Free Lake Michigan and Great Lakes,

---Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear radioactive waste specialist & Don't Waste Michigan board of directors member

Physicians for Social Responsibility-WI links and write ups:

<https://psr-wisconsin.org/feb-17-meeting>

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Scoping Meeting for Point Beach Nuclear Reactors

Wednesday, February 17 from 1-3pm CT and 2-4pm ET

Informational FAQ on the EIS process here.

---

WEBINAR ACCESS

*Please log into both the Teams meeting and Bridgeline audio. Visuals will be through Microsoft Teams and audio will be through Bridgeline.

TEAMS link: https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_YzA4MjM0M2UtZTRjNy00Mjc3LThjOGItNzg1OTFjZjY4Yjdm%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22e8d01475-c3b5-436a-a065-5def4c64f52e%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22423488ef-ed1f-4f6b-bd2e-fc72ac8da562%22%7d

Bridgeline Number: 800-369-1750 -> Passcode: 4187785 then #

PHONE ACCESS

Bridge Number: (800) 369-1750
Passcode: 4187785

How to be involved:

• SHOW UP!

  One of the most important actions for February 17th is to simply join the meeting! You do not need to speak or write anything in advance if you do not wish to. By attending, you are sending a message that the public is involved and cares about what is happening at Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. If the webinar link is not functioning correctly, try joining by phone.

• Speak

  If you want to, we encourage you prepare a 2-3 minute statement about concerns and questions you have about the impact of a license extension on the environment as well as the socio-economic impacts. Here are some starter ideas and topics.

  If you wish to speak, follow these instructions to be on the queue:

  • Please press *1 to get in queue to speak

  • State and spell your name and affiliation

  • Press # to return to the meeting

  • The operator will introduce you when it's your turn to speak

• Write

  You can submit written comments online by March 3rd. Here are some tips for writing comments.

NRC provided slides for February 17th presentation here.

---

ABOUT
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a scoping process to gather information necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement to evaluate the environmental impacts for the subsequent license renewal of the operating licenses for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Point Beach). The NRC is seeking public input on this action.

The application is available on the NRC’s website here and in the NRC’s publicly available Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Accession Number is ML20329A292.

<https://psr-wisconsin.org/point-beach-eis>

Point Beach Nuclear Reactors - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

You can attend and speak at the public scoping meeting on February 17th from 2 - 4 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST), 1- 3 pm Central Standard Time (CST). Click here for more information and the link to join the meeting.

You can also submit comments by March 3, 2021 at 10:59pm CT. You can submit online here or mail to Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.

---

What is an EIS?

The environmental impact statement (EIS) is a government document that outlines the impact of a proposed project on its surrounding environment. In the United States, these statements are mandated by federal law for certain projects. Environmental impact statements are meant to inform the work and decisions of policymakers and community leaders. (source)

What is the connection with an EIS and the Point Beach license renewal application?

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must prepare an environmental impact statement with the renewal of an operation.

What is the purpose of public scoping in the EIS process?

The goal of scoping is to identify specific elements of the environment that might be affected if the renewal of the reactor licenses is carried out. The scoping process is a critical time to identify issues, determine points of contact, determine project schedules and provide recommendations to the agency. The overall goal is to define the scope of issues to be addressed in depth in the analyses that will be included in the EIS.

How do I get involved with the EIS process?

You can attend and speak at the public scoping meeting on February 17th from 2 - 4 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST), 1- 3 pm Central Standard Time (CST). Click here for more information and the link to join the meeting.

You can also submit comments by March 3, 2021 at 10:59pm CT. You can submit online here or mail to Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.

What should I focus on during the public scoping meeting on February 17th from 2-4pm ET / 1-3pm CT and in the public scoping comments due March 3rd?

Download a PDF of tips for writing comments here >>

View our topic ideas and starter points for Point Beach EIS scoping comments here >>

Who writes and creates the EIS?

An EIS might have one or more authors. Federal agencies (this would include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) typically outsource the writing of an EIS to third party contractors (including lawyers, scientists, engineers) with expertise in their preparation and in relation to the proposed project. As a result, the EIS varies in appearance, as well as length and number of supplemental attachments. (source)

Will there be another chance to get involved with this process?

Yes! Following the scoping process, the EIS will be drafted and then the draft will be released to the public. After the release, there will be a meeting and comment period in regards to the draft EIS during a 45-day period. The NRC predicts this will be in fall 2021, but be prepared for it to be delayed.

What is included in an EIS?

According to the American Bar Association, a typical federal EIS includes the following four sections:

• Section 1—Introduces the Proposed Action and its Purpose and Need

• Section 2—Describes the Affected Environment, provides a baseline for understanding the current environmental situation in relation to the Proposed Action.

• Section 3—Presents a Range of Alternatives to the Proposed Action—this is considered the “heart” of the EIS. There is always a No Action Alternative presented. Understanding how the environment would respond if no action were taken helps to evaluate the Proposed Action and Alternatives.

• Section 4—Analyzes the environmental impact of each of the Proposed Actions and Range of Alternatives. The analysis include:

  • Impacts to threatened or endangered species

  • Air and water quality impacts

  • Impacts to historical and cultural sites, particularly sites of significance for indigenous peoples

  • Social and economical impacts to local communities, including housing stock, businesses, property values, and considerations of aesthetics and noise expected

  • Cost and schedule analysis for all of the actions and alternatives presented

The EIS may include additional topics not required for every project, including financial plans, environmental mitigation plans, and plans for complying with any additional required federal, state, or local permits.

What is the proposed action with the Point Beach Nuclear Reactors?

The proposed action is the subsequent license renewal of the operating licenses for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

What does no action alternative mean?

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to always describe and analyze a “no action” alternative in an EIS. In simple terms, a no action alternative for an existing or ongoing federal project considers what would happen if the federal agency continued to operate and maintain the authorized project with no changes.

Agencies are obligated to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives in enough detail so that a reader can compare and contrast the environmental effects of the various alternatives to the proposed action. The no action alternative analysis provides a benchmark to allow decision makers and the public to compare the levels of environmental effects of the alternatives. (source)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael J Keegan <mkeeganj@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Point Beach 2/17/2021 Scoping Mtg Slides

Slides for 2/17/2021 Point Beach Scoping Meeting - 

 

ML21042B945

https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML21042B945 

Document Title:	Point Beach Scoping and Process Meeting - February 17, 2021
Document Type:	Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts Slides and Viewgraphs
Document Date:	02/17/2021

 

ML21034A458

https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML21034A458 

Document Title:	02/17/2021 Environmental Scoping Meeting Related to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Point Beach), Subsequent License Renewal Application
Document Type:	Meeting Notice Meeting Agenda
Document Date:	02/03/2021

N2

Michael J. Keegan

Don't Waste Michigan

Karl Grossman: "This Reckless Path," on proposed 100-year long operations at U.S. atomic reactors

Karl GrossmanKarl Grossman's piece on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission holding a "public meeting" on letting nuclear power plants run for 100 years.

Karl is an investigative journalist, author, and board member of Beyond Nuclear.

NUCLEAR AGENCY SLAMMED FOR FAILURE TO WEIGH HOUSE BILL 6 REPERCUSSIONS IN PERRY NUCLEAR PLANT EXTENSION: Energy Harbor wants to operate the already dangerously age-degraded atomic reactor another quarter-century into the future

NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR For immediate release, December 18, 2020 Contact: Connie Kline, Beyond Nuclear member and local resident, klineisfine@aol.com, (440) 946-9012 David Hughes, Citizen Power president and local resident, hughes@citizenpower.com, (412) 421-4163 Terry Lodge, Toledo, Ohio-based attorney, tjlodge50@yahoo.com, (419) 205-7084 Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear radioactive waste specialist, kevin@beyondnuclear.org, (240) 462-3216

NUCLEAR AGENCY SLAMMED FOR FAILURE TO WEIGH HOUSE BILL 6 REPERCUSSIONS IN PERRY NUCLEAR PLANT EXTENSION

Energy Harbor wants to operate the already dangerously age-degraded atomic reactor another quarter-century into the future

NORTH PERRY, OHIO -- On Friday, December 18, 2020, two groups advocating safe, renewable non-nuclear energy formally notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of their petition challenging a license extension the NRC granted the owners of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in northeastern Ohio.     In the petition, six ratepayers and residents who live near the 1268 Megawatt-electric nuclear plant criticized NRC studies that justified 7.7 additional months of operation to Perry at the end of its 40-year license in 2026. They claim the agency pointedly ignored increasing concerns over the plant’s economic stability. Energy Harbor, the owner of Perry and another nuclear generation station, Davis-Besse near Oak Harbor, Ohio was bailed out by a state law passed in 2019 which allows some $1.3 billion to be collected from electricity ratepayers across the entire state until 2027, expressly to keep the plants open and operating.     That law,  known as House Bill 6, passed narrowly by one vote and became even more controversial in July 2020 when the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Larry Householder, and four other Republican Party operatives were indicted on federal bribery and racketeering charges arising from passage of HB 6. Public pressure and opposition have mounted as additional evidence of corruption has emerged. The chairman of the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, a longtime lobbyist for FirstEnergy, the former owner of the nuclear plants, suddenly resigned in November following an FBI raid believed to be connected to the ongoing bribery investigation.     The General Assembly is presently in “lame duck” session and several proposals related to repeal, replacement or deferral of action on House Bill 6 are under consideration as public demands to repeal the law increase.     Five of the six plaintiffs in the NRC complaint are members of Beyond Nuclear, located in Takoma Park, Maryland, and the sixth is president of Citizen Power, Inc., a Pittsburgh-based organization. Both groups advocate for an end to nuclear power generation on grounds of safety and cost, and for the immediate development of safe energy generation, energy efficiency and conservation. Their concerns center around environmental and safety reports compiled by agency staff to justify the license extension, which the plaintiffs claim completely ignore the economic uncertainties that have plagued Energy Harbor for years that have been compounded by the bailout scandal.     “Extending the license of this dangerous dinosaur should not be considered, but if it is, there must be a comprehensive evaluation of the physical plant to ensure public safety and prove that the plant is profitable and not going to cost ratepayers more money,” said David Hughes, president of Citizen Power, Inc. Mr. Hughes’ summer residence is 4 miles downwind of the Perry Plant.      "The NRC has completely ignored the precarious financial situation and mismanagement of Energy Harbor and its predecessor," said Connie Kline, a Beyond Nuclear member whose home is 17 miles from Perry. “Despite a half dozen lawsuits, EH has refused to open its books for audit or to testify before the General Assembly.  For years, the NRC has waived and deferred inspections, maintenance, repairs and upgrades at Perry which pose potentially serious safety consequences while tons of lethal radioactive waste pile up on the shores of Lake Erie. Shortly after passage of HB 6, EH authorized an $800 million stock buyback. Ohio must strengthen renewable energy and efficiency, quickly phase out and close Perry and Davis-Besse, and retrain workers in plentiful, high-paying energy jobs of the future."     “Where’s the sanity clause in this controversy?” mused Terry Lodge, Toledo attorney representing the plaintiffs. "The agency can’t be allowed to feign ignorance and rubber stamp a license extension when the fate of this aging nuke hangs in the balance of the largest bribery and racketeering scandal In Ohio’s history.”     “FirstEnergy actually notified the NRC in 2018 that Perry was going to be permanently closed in 2021, but canceled that when the bailout became law,” noted Kevin Kamps, Radioactve Waste Specialist at Beyond Nuclear. “Energy Harbor wants this license extension to lend the appearance that Perry might operate until 2046. The public won’t stand for it, because guaranteeing safety at a 34-year-old atomic reactor becomes economically doubtful and may even be out of reach.” -30-

Beyond Nuclear is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization. Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Info@beyondnuclear.org. www.beyondnuclear.org.

Duane Arnold atomic reactor shutting down for good two months earlier than scheduled after damage from derecho

NRC file photo of Duane Arnold atomic reactor.As reported by CBS 2 Iowa.

Duane Arnold, a Fukushima Daiichi twin design (a General Electric Mark I Boiling Water Reactor), had long been scheduled for a "late" 2020 closure, as reported by The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, IA. More recently, the permanent closure for good date had been more precisely scheduled for late October 2020. But, as reported above, Duane Arnold has been closed even earlier -- August 24, 2020 -- due to damage from the severe derecho (hurricane force straight line winds) that recently struck the Cedar Rapids area.

See additional news coverage about the shutdown from the Gazette.

Once defueled, the reactor core can no longer have a meltdown, by definition. Plus, no more radioactive waste will be generated.

Of course, the high-level radioactive waste risks remain in the wet storage pool, as well as in the dry cask storage on-site. Plus there is all the "low" level radioactive waste, including from facility dismantlement, as well as radioactive contamination of the site, to deal with. (Radioactive waste and contamination, once generated, can't be "cleaned up" -- it merely gets moved from its current location, to a dump-site elsewhere, where it remains hazardous). Alas, that watch-dog work goes on. But still, Duane Arnold's closure is worth celebrating! Especially given the fact that Duane Arnold's electricity supply will be readily replaced by Iowa's ample wind power resources!

The incident leading to Duane Arnold's even earlier shutdown that previously announced -- hurricane force wind derecho damage -- underscores the point that, far from being a supposed solution to the climate crisis, atomic reactors are actually much too dangerous to operate in a world plagued by worsening extreme weather disasters.

As documented at Beyond Nuclear's "Reactors Are Closing" website section, Duane Arnold's closure marks the 10th reactor closure in the U.S. since 2013 -- a record number. This means there are now 94 commercial atomic reactors still operating in the U.S.

NRC rubber-stamped Duane Arnold's 20-year license extension in 2010. Thus, instead of shutting down in 2014, at the expiration of its initial 40-year license (1974-2014), NRC gave its thumbs up to Duane Arnold operating 60 years (1974-2034). Despite this, however, the severely age-degraded 46-year old atomic reactor permanently shut down 14 years earlier than its extended license flippantly, dangerously allowed for.

NRC greenlights Peach Bottom 80-year license extension despite significant safety questions

NRC photoOn March 5, 2020, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) staff gave its “OK” to a second 20-year extension of the operating license of the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 nuclear power station in southeast Pennsylvania. Peach Bottom’s first 20-year extension to the original 40-year year operating license expires 2033 and 2034. But before it evidences getting too old and decrepit, the agency needs approval now to extend operations out to 2053 and 2054, respectively. Peach Bottom, a 1960’s vintage General Electric Mark I boiling water reactor design, is a controversial Fukushima-style reactor like those that exploded and melted down in Japan following the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Actually, the Mark I controversy goes back to 1972 when a top U.S. safety official with NRC’s predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, said that the containment by design is too small to withstand a severe nuclear accident and would like fail. As predicted, Fukushima demonstrated a 100% containment failure rate for the three units at full power during the natural disaster.

The NRC’s four seated Commissioners still have to rule on Beyond Nuclear’s legal appeal of the agency’s Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) order denying our November 19, 2018 request for a hearing and intervention opposing the extension. Beyond Nuclear, through its legal counsel and expert witness David Lochbaum, objected to the second license renewal because Peach Bottom’s owner and operator, Exelon, did not submit adequate age management programs according to NRC regulations to reliably track and manage ongoing deterioration of non-replaceable safety-related systems, structures and components (SSC) during the license renewal period. These SSC include hundreds of miles of aging electrical circuitry systems, their jacketing and insulation buried throughout the facility, the large steel and concrete reactor containment structure much of which is inaccessible to inspection, maintenance and surveillance and the 90-foot tall steel reactor pressure vessel component and internals that are embrittling from the combined extreme heat and radiation. Ironically, the licensing board ruled that the Beyond Nuclear argument was “too vague and speculative” to warrant a hearing for further scientific and regulatory scrutiny of Exelon’s safety crystal ball process for the projected period of 2033 to 2054.

But in order to do this, in the Fall of 2018, in the midst of the Peach Bottom  license renewal review process, the NRC staff erased many inconvenient scientific questions and recommendations from the government public record, evidence the NRC had contracted for from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) “in support” of  the Peach Bottom extension and many more nuclear power stations that will seek second license renewal. The federal lab report was downloaded by Beyond Nuclear from the federal laboratory's public website in Spring 2018. The PNNL report strongly recommended that the NRC and the DOE "require" strategically targeted autopsies from the now growing number of permanently closed reactors around the country in order to validate the second license renewal process at still operating reactors. But the federal laboratory scientific study was withdrawn from the public record in late September 2018 by NRC. According to the retracted PNNL report, putting these nukes on the slab, so to speak, was necessay and should "require”, for example, harvesting aged samples of base metals, weld materials, concrete cores to calibrate industry computer models for projecting aging  mechanisms like crack initiation and crack growth rates using these real time aged material from actual field experience.  The harvesting of aged materials would provide materials to observe, measure, quantify and analyze the science for dozens of real time aging effects constantly attacking reactor safety margins during harsh reactor operations (think radiation-induced embrittlement and microcracking of the steel base metal and weld materials, "concrete cancer", and a jillion synergistic effects). Harvesting, archiving and analyzing these real time aged material samples would provide the second or “subsequent” license renewal process with missing technical data for many significant safety knowledge "gaps." The PNNL report determined that NRC needs this analysis for the evidence before it can provide reasonable assurance of reactor safety performance and equipment reliability still decades into the future.  So the national lab said that NRC should "require" a combined effort of the DOE, NRC and the nuclear industry to afford strategic harvesting of aged materials for the analysis from closed reactors like Exelon's Oyster Creek in New Jersey---the world's first Fukushima-style reactor.  Exelon should look at the real effects of aging from its 49 year old nuke in NJ  to baseline the safe and reliable operation during the license extension of same design seeking a license extension at Peach Bottom in PA. 

The NRC staff argues that the PNNL report published in December 2017 was a premature "draft" despite the scientific study being posted to the government websites of PNNL, the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The published scientific study had no markings of "draft" and had been publicly available for nine months with interceding meetings between the government agencies. Prior to the December 2017 release, the NRC staff had been fully engaged and commenting on the published paper. Still, in early April 2019, the NRC subsequently published its revised version of the PNNL report that has removed PNNL previous recommendations to require strategic harvesting at decommissioning reactors and dozens of references to the PNNL acknowledged technical knowledge "gaps" that must be addressed before permitting second license renewal applications. To date, the NRC revised version has not been publicly reposted to the PNNL, OSTI or IAEA websites.  Beyond Nuclear continues to process a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request to the NRC filed on September 25, 2018 that NRC continues to slow walk and stall its full disclosure. 

With but a severely limited sample set of harvested materials as acknowledged by both NRC staff and the federal laboratories, the industry has been burying the bodies of its decommissioned nuclear reactors whole for decades. This is what happened at Yankee Rowe (MA), Rancho Seco (CA), and Trojan (OR), without an autopsy even to harvest archival material samples despite the repeated calls  from the scientific community for the public safety related activity. That's the way the NRC and the nuclear industry want to keep it now going out to 80 years.