51 organizations and 30 individuals submit coalition comments on NRC's DEIS, opposing 80-year operating license at Point Beach Units 1 & 2, WI

NextEra's Point Beach Units 1 & 2 nuclear power plant on WI's Lake Michigan shoreJanuary 3, 2022

Office of Administration
Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff
Submitted via email to: <PointBeach-SLRSEIS@nrc.gov>

Coalition Public Comments re: NRC’s DSGEIS on NextEra Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant Subsequent License Renewal, Docket ID NRC-2020-0234, NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Draft

To Whom It May Concern,

On behalf of the undersigned 51 organizations and 30 individuals, please find below and attached our coalition’s public comments regarding Docket ID NRC-2020-0234, the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437), November 2021 (DSGEIS).

[SEE THE FULL COMMENTS POSTED ONLINE HERE. SIGNATORIES ARE LISTED AT THE VERY END OF THE COMMENTS.]

Coalition comments opposing subsequent license extension at Point Beach, out to 80 years of operations

NRC file photo of Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, located on Wisconsin's Lake Michigan shorelineDear Friends and Colleagues,

Organizations and individuals are welcome to sign onto coalition comments to NRC, on its DSGEIS, Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Comments are due by Jan. 3, 2022, at 11:59pm Eastern Time.

See the coalition's five comments here.

To sign on an organization, please email kevin@beyondnuclear.org the following information:

Organization name, person's name, person's title if any, city, state.

To sign on as an individual, just send your name, city and state.

Sign on deadline is 5pm ET, Monday, Jan. 3, 2022.

Additional Background:

The first four comments are based on contentions submitted by Toledo, OH attorney Terry Lodge, on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisonson, in the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board licensing proceeding, on March 23, 2021. The contentions were based on expert witness reports provided by Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer at Fairewinds, Dr. Al Compaan of U. of Toledo, and Dr. Mark Cooper of Vermont Law School. See links to the contentions and expert witness reports (which will be attached to the coalition comments when they are submitted) here.

The first four comments are:

(1.) The NRC DEIS compounds NextEra’s Environmental Report error, in failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action because of a failure to analyze thermal pollution mitigation as a means of reducing aquatic biota and migratory and year-round resident bird impingement, entrainment, and damage from thermal pollution, as required by NEPA and the NRC

(2.) Point Beach’s continued operation violates 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criterion 14 because the reactor coolant pressure boundary has not been tested so as to have an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage, of rapidly propagating failure, and of gross rupture, and the aging management plan does not provide the requisite reasonable assurance.

(3.) The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Environmental Report, as well as the NRC DEIS, utterly fail to adequately evaluate the full potential for renewable energy sources, such as solar electric power (photovoltaics) to offset the loss of energy production from PBNP, and to make the requested license renewal action from 2030 to 2053 unnecessary.

(4.) Point Beach Nuclear Plant has an elevated risk of a turbine missile accident owing to the poor alignment of its major buildings and structures.

The fifth comment is based on "error of law" commentary provided by Beyond Nuclear Reactor Oversight Project Director Paul Gunter on Dec. 29, 2021 in this proceeding. See Gunter's comment, and additional information, linked and posted here.

The fifth comment is: Re: Misuse by Misinterpretation and Misrepresentation of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3).

Thank you for considering signing on. Please spread the word.

Sincerely,

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan

Beyond Nuclear Files Comments on Point Beach Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Opposing a Second License Renewal

On December 29, 2021, Beyond Nuclear filed comments to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to a request by the agency to respond to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) for a second 20-year license extension (60- to 80-years) of the Point Beach nuclear power station.

The NRC staff is giving its preliminary approval for the environmental qualification to operate the two Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors on shore of Lake Michigan at Two Rivers, Wisconsin out to 2050 and 2053. The environmental "go-ahead" is based in large part on the "generic" approval of scores of environmental issues including by-passing a site-specific evaluation of what might be the consequences and environmental impacts of a severe nuclear accident on the Great Lakes. For example, the NRC staff has determined that the effects of a nuclear meltdown on the water quality of Lake Michigan would by "SMALL" and therefore does not warrant a site-specific examination with full hearing rights, disclosure of industry and government documents and expert testimony from public interest groups opposed to the reliciensing.

Beyond Nuclear's comments focus on a blatant "error of law" that has been repeated by variety of applicants thoughout the second 20-year license extension approval process for many reactors, including Point Beach's operator NextEra Energy, the NRC Atomic Safety Licensing Boards and the Commission.  Beyond Nuclear has charged that the NRC and industry have repeatedly misinterpreted and misrepresented a simple reading of the plain language of the law [10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)] governing the agency's issuance of "generic" approvals to environmentally qualify nuclear reactor license extensions for the "Subsequent License Renewal" period (60- to 80-years). The law, as written and codified, only applies to granting "generic" approval to a table of environmental issues identified , expressly and exclusively, for the "initial" license extension's 20-year period (40- to 60-years), not the "subsequent" 20-year extension period (60- to 80-years).

Beyond Nuclear has challenged this misinterpretation of the regulatory law at the Peach Bottom nuclear power station in Pennsylvania where the licensing board denied Beyond Nuclear a request for a hearing.  Beyond Nuclear lost its appeal to a majority vote by the five seated NRC Commissions. However, two of the five Commissioners, Commissioners Jeff Baran and Christopher Hanson, wrote in a November 13, 2020 dissenting opinion, agreeing with Beyond Nuclear should be granted a hearing because the Peach Bottom applicant, Exelon, the NRC staff and the licensing board had committed an "error of law" by ignoring Beyond Nuclear's finding that the letter of the law as written in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) does not apply the Subsequent License Renewal expension review and generic approval.  Beyond Nuclear subsequently raised the same contention and others in a seperate Subsequent License Renewal request for hearing  on an application filed Dominion Energy's North Anna nuclear power station in Virginia. Similarly, the NRC staff and licensing board ruled against Beyond Nuclear by denying a request for a hearing on the misuse of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3). Beyond Nuclear has appealed the denial of a hearing and is currently awaiting a decision by the Commission where now Chairman Hanson and Commission Baran are the majority of the presently three seated Commissioners with two seats empty awaiting nomination by President Biden, vetting and approval the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

Point Beach atomic reactors, Wisconsin 80-year operating license NRC Draft EIS public comment meetings, Wed., Dec. 8, 1-3pm CT (2-4pm ET) & 5-7pm CT (6-8pm ET); written comments due Jan. 3, 2022

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

As Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin has posted, regarding the Point Beach Units 1 & 2 nuclear power plant on WI's Lake Michigan shore:

There will be two public meetings on Wednesday, December 8th, 1 - 3pmCT [2-4pmET] and 5-7pmCT [6-8pmET] . More information & meeting link here >>

For the public meetings, you must log into both the Microsoft Teams meeting and by phone. Visuals will be through Microsoft Teams, and audio will be through the phone.

Link to the Teams meeting for visuals >> https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_MGExZGI2MTgtYWM0MS00NzljLWFhMzYtNDkxMmE3ODliNjE1%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

Phone number to hear the meeting and to participate >> +1 (800) 369-1776 and passcode: 6429255 then #

See PSR WI's website devoted to this issue:

https://www.closepointbeachnuclear.org/

Here is a link to the host, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) meeting information:

https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML21319A284

At PSR WI's website linked above, you can learn more information and history, and see how to take action/get involved, including tomorrow's online public meetings, at which verbal comments can be submitted. Tips for preparing DEIS comments are also provided.

But written comments can be submitted up until the Jan. 3, 2022 deadline. Please see the PSR WI website for the various ways that written public comments can be submitted:

https://www.closepointbeachnuclear.org/

For additional ideas for public comments you can make, see this Beyond Nuclear website post re: the PSR WI legal intervention in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board supplemental license extension (out to 80 years) proceeding:

http://archive.beyondnuclear.org/relicensing/2021/3/23/psr-wi-petitions-to-intervene-and-requests-hearing-in-opposi.html

Toledo, Ohio-based attorney Terry Lodge serves as PSR WI's legal counsel. PSR WI's expert witnesses include: nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds; emeritus professor Dr. Al Compaan of the University of Toledo; and energy economist Dr. Mark Cooper of Vermont Law School.

For more information on NRC's high-risk rubber-stamps of reactor operating license extensions, including most recently the ones at Point Beach, see:

http://archive.beyondnuclear.org/relicensing/

So far, NRC has rubber-stamped 80-year operating license extensions for 9 of the 93 still operating reactors in the U.S.

6 additional reactors -- including Point Beach Units 1 & 2 -- have applied for 80-year licenses from NRC. See:

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/subsequent-license-renewal.html

(Note that almost every single one of the 93 still operating reactors in the U.S. have already gotten their 60-year operating license rubber-stamped by NRC:

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html )

Point Beach Unit 2 has the dubious distinction, that once Palisades in Michigan (also on the Lake Michigan shore) shuts down for good by May 31, 2022, it will be the single worst neutron-embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the U.S., at risk of through-wall fracture, and consequent reactor core meltdown. Expert witness Arnie Gundersen provided testimony re: the embrittlement risks at Point Beach, and one of the contentions prepared by attorney Terry Lodge -- linked above -- focused on embrittlement risks at Point Beach, if it is allowed to operate for 80 years.

Beyond Nuclear has intervened numerous times since 2007 re: embrittlement risks at Palisades in Michigan, with lessons learned that can be applied at Point Beach in Wisconsin, as well as at scores of other vulnerable, age-degraded pressurized water reactors still operating in the U.S. See:

http://archive.beyondnuclear.org/safety/2014/10/30/beyond-nuclear-warns-nrc-against-weakening-rpv-embrittlement.html

Reactor pressure vessel embrittlement is a pathway to catastrophic core meltdown. As CRAC-II -- a 1982 NRC-commissioned, Sandia National Lab-conducted report -- shows, a meltdown at Point Beach Unit 2 could result in:

Up to 2,000 peak early fatalities (acute radiation poisoning deaths); 9,000 peak early radiation injuries; 7,000 peak cancer deaths (latent cancer fatalities); and $41.4 billion in property damage.

(CRAC-II is short for Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences. The report is most often referred to as the CRAC-II report because that is the name of the computer program used in the calculations, but the report is also known more officially as the 1982 Sandia Siting Study or as NUREG/CR-2239. NRC attempted to cover up the CRAC-II's horrific casualty and property damage figures, but longtime nuclear power watchdog, U.S. Rep. (now U.S. Senator) Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, outed them via congressional hearings.)

However, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe in Japan has shown that domino effect meltdowns are possible; if Point Beach Unit 1 were to also melt down, due to a meltdown at the adjacent Unit 2, then casualties and property damage would be doubled.

But CRAC-II's figures don't account for economic development around Point Beach from 1982 to the present. It is also far from clear that impacts on the Great Lakes drinking water supply for 40 million people in 7 downstream U.S states, 2 downstream Canadian provinces, and a large number of downstream Native American First Nations, were adequately accounted for, if at all.

(See Arnie Gundersen's blog post, "Downstream": https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/downstream?rq=downstream  -- also see Arnie Gundersen's educational video about embrittlement, "Nuclear Crack Down?": https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/nuclear-crack)

But adjusting for inflation alone, from 1982 dollar figures to 2020 dollar figures, property damage from a meltdown at Point Beach Unit 2 would now surpass $112.5 billion.

And as AP investigative reporter Jeff Donn reported in mid-2011, populations have soared around Point Beach since 1982 (see Part III), so post-meltdown casualty figures would now be much worse. Donn also cited embrittlement as the top example of NRC regulatory retreat (see Part I):

https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/aging-nukes-a-four-part-investigative-series-by-jeff-donn

Please take action -- by submitting verbal comments tomorrow, and/or written comments by Jan. 3rd -- and please spread the word! Thanks!

---Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan

Beyond Nuclear on "Nuclear Hot Seat" on dam failure and nuclear accidents in Oconee relicensing

Beyond Nuclear’s Paul Gunter is on the “Nuclear Hotseat” (time mark 19:45) to talk about Duke Energy’s operation of the Oconee nuclear power station just downstream of the Jocassee Dam and the Keowee Dam in South Carolina. Duke received its original 40-year operating license for the three units in 1973 and 1974 without adequate flood protection in the reactors’ design and construction from a dam failure alleging that a site inundation wasn’t a “credible event.” Duke Energy is now requesting its second 20-year license renewal to extend reactor operations out to 2053 and 2054. Beyond Nuclear and Sierra Club are requesting a hearing on Oconee’s flood protection and the risk of a triple meltdown like Japan’s Fukushima nuclear accident. More…http://nuclearhotseat.com/2021/10/06/oconee-nuclear-south-carolina-inland-tsunami/?fbclid=IwAR0tNAqXXdBQDYZWvBU8VK3GK4PLbqO046GA4Wnin4CDsG0Ph7V2AdplHkM