ML24201A042

Comment (50) E-mail Regarding Palisades Restart Scoping

ML24201A042
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	07/16/2024
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
89FR53659
Download: ML24201A042 (4)

Text

From: Donald Williams <williams@hope.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 10:18 PM To: PalisadesRestartEnvironmental Resource

Subject:

[External_Sender] Public Scoping Environmental Written Comment Attachments: Scope of the Environmental Review NRC.docx

IN this e-Mail AND as an attachment; My Comments don

Scope of an Environmental Review associated with the possible restarting of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant I write to provide context. I hope that the scope of the NRC-required review includes the range of facts that I present here.

The important word environment calls me to consider context, namely, is there a better alternative to nuclear power? Every method that is currently used to generate electricity has a downside here are a few:

• Coal ash is toxic and radioactive,

• Gas can burn explosively and always contributes to global warming,

• Windmills fall in tornadoes, kill birds, their reflections produce seizures for some people and their blades do not recycle well.

• Solar panels have limited lifetimes, include toxic substances and are inefficient,

• Dams are not very effective during a drought.

The list for each example could go on and on. That is why no thoughtful person seeks a single source of electrical power.

I believe that good ecology calls for diversity and nuclear power belongs in the mix. Its radioactive waste seems to bother some folks the most. It is dangerous but, comparatively, very, very small in volume. Furthermore, other countries are making giant strides in isolating it, Finland for example.

In particular, the Palisades Power Plant is not located in a seismically active zone nor is it likely to experience a hurricane or tsunami. It has an inherently safer design than that of old Russian reactors and it has more experienced operators that those at Three Mile Island (where, by the way, no one was physically injured).

Yes, nuclear power plants call for a well-educated and trained staff. That and careful regulation explain why American reactors have accumulated millions of worker hours of safe operation. The service record of the Palisades Plant indicates a steady progression of improved performance. It has not harmed its immediate environment over the 40+ years of its existence, yet kept our lights lit.

Donald H. Williams, Ph.D. (Don can be reached at Willliams@hope.edu) 145 Columbia Av APT 619 Holland MI 49423 616-396-6096

Donald H. Williams 145 Columbia Ave APT 619 Holland MI 49423-2980 (616) 396-6096 williams@hope.edu Sue's address is swilliams@hope.edu

Federal Register Notice: 89FR53659 Comment Number: 50

Mail Envelope Properties (CAAhcsbjFSGmTszSFmh=9kyX=k1+WM9OwuVLMq8fj5_tMf42_fQ)

Subject:

[External_Sender] Public Scoping Environmental Written Comment Sent Date: 7/16/2024 10:17:38 PM Received Date: 7/16/2024 10:18:27 PM From: Donald Williams

Created By: williams@hope.edu

Recipients:

"PalisadesRestartEnvironmental Resource" <PalisadesRestartEnvironmental.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None

Post Office: mail.gmail.com

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 2444 7/16/2024 10:18:27 PM Scope of the Environmental Review NRC.docx 17112

Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Scope of an Environmental Review associated with the possible restarting of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant I write to provide context. I hope that the scope of the NRC-required review includes the range of facts that I present here.

The important word environment calls me to consider context, namely, is there a better alternative to nuclear power? Every method that is currently used to generate electricity has a downside here are a few:

• Coal ash is toxic and radioactive,

• Gas can burn explosively and always contributes to global warming,

• Windmills fall in tornadoes, kill birds, their reflections produce seizures for some people and their blades do not recycle well.

• Solar panels have limited lifetimes, include toxic substances and are inefficient,

• Dams are not very effective during a drought.

The list for each example could go on and on. That is why no thoughtful person seeks a single source of electrical power.

I believe that good ecology calls for diversity and nuclear power belongs in the mix.

Its radioactive waste seems to bother some folks the most. It is dangerous but, comparatively, very, very small in volume. Furthermore, other countries are making giant strides in isolating it, Finland for example.

In particular, the Palisades Power Plant is not located in a seismically active zone nor is it likely to experience a hurricane or tsunami. It has an inherently safer design than that of old Russian reactors and it has more experienced operators that those at Three Mile Island (where, by the way, no one was physically injured).

Yes, nuclear power plants call for a well-educated and trained staff. That and careful regulation explain why American reactors have accumulated millions of worker hours of safe operation. The service record of the Palisades Plant indicates a steady progression of improved performance. It has not harmed its immediate environment over the 40+ years of its existence, yet kept our lights lit.

Donald H. Williams, Ph.D. (Don can be reached at Willliams@hope.edu) 145 Columbia Av APT 619 Holland MI 49423 616 -396-6096