ML060480375

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Comment (26) of William C. Pearson Opposing Proposed Entergy Vermont Yankee Uprate
ML060480375
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 02/14/2006
From: Pearson W
- No Known Affiliation
To:
NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB
References
%dam200606, 71FR1774 00026
Download: ML060480375 (1)


Text

RULES J CTES 2 BRACH I'l c /s7;74 129 Forest Street February 6,206 KI

7 12 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re. page 1774 Federal Register/ Vol 71/ Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Dear Sirs:

I have followed the Entergy Vermont Yankee uprate debate, read newspaper articles and editorials about missing fuel rod pieces, cracks in steam dryers, fires in transformers, late night manuevers at the Vermont State House to accommodate Entergy's wishes; attended public hearings, and written letters to the editor of the Brattleboro Reformer. I am appalled to think that Vermont Yankee's uprate may soon be decided on political rather than safety considerations.

The president wants more nuclear power generation. The NRC has approved all uprate applications as far as I know. Entergy Corporation wants to make more money. Scientific arrogance, greased by billions of dollars of federal subsidies, is positioned to carry the day.

It is difficult to discount the impression that the people, families, businesses, and communities in the affected area are being treated as pawns. Listened to, yes. That has been done. Thank you. But I wonder if we have truly been heard. Safety, not "engineering," is what people are concerned about.

There is a simple solution, if the NRC truly cares to do the right thing: conduct an independent safety assessment (I.S.A.) of this 30 plus year old plant that is being asked to perform at 120% of its original design capacity. If the assessment proves Vermont Yankee to be safe; fine, let's find out once and for all. It would assuage people's doubts, worries, fears. It would dispel the polarization of positions that has come about between friends and neighbors. It would restore faith in our government. If the plant proves to be unsafe, let's find that out as well. A major catastrophe might be averted. There is absolutely too much at stake here for the NRC not to require an ISA.

Scerely

~WifllhiC. Pearson

, yje-e3 Iq- HeSE Sv