ML061840036
| ML061840036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/06/2006 |
| From: | NRC/NRR/ADRO/DLR/REBB |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-1071 | |
| Download: ML061840036 (8) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Vermont Yankee License Renewal Public Scoping Meeting Docket Number:
(050-00271)
Location:
Brattleboro, Vermont Date:
Tuesday, June 6, 2006 Work Order No.:
NRC-1071 Pages 1-7 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING 4
FOR THE VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, 5
+ + + + +
7
- TUESDAY, 8
JUNE 6, 2006 9
+ + + + +
10 BRATTLEBORO, VERMONT 11
+ + + + +
12 The Public Meeting was convened at the 13 Quality Inn at 1380 Putney Road in Brattleboro, 14 Vermont, at 2:00 p.m.
15 SPEAKERS:
16 MICHAEL MULLIGAN 17 NANCY CROMPTON 18 ELLEN KAYE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
2:34 p.m.
2 MR. MULLIGAN: Hello. I'm Mike Mulligan.
3 I live in Hinsdale, New Hampshire, P.O. Box, 161, 4
Hinsdale, New Hampshire 03451. And my concern is with 5
global warming. What I understand is that the 6
Connecticut River, upstream of Vermont Yankee has been 7
heating up slightly, especially during the summers.
8 It's been turning up for a decade or so, the peak 9
summertime temperatures, as an example.
10 Or how about river low-flows in a drought 11 situation? So the question is will the re-licensing 12 of Vermont Yankee have -- will they consider what 13 global warming could potentially do with the river 14 temperatures? Will Vermont Yankee have to power down 15 at times for that? Will the environmental 16 temperatures inside the buildings and stuff, are they 17
-- the design environmental temperatures, are they 18 adequate enough so that we wouldn't be confronted with 19 shutting down the plant during the summer, summer 20 time?
21 I'm concerned about say we're in a drought 22 in the summer time and the plant -- and we approach 23 their limits. Probably around that time other plants 24 would be stressed and the grid of New England would be 25
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 stressed. So the question is well, do you want to 1
make the grid worse at its most vulnerable time with 2
shutting down Vermont Yankee? Do you want to push the 3
grid electric prices to astronomical prices? Do you 4
want to de-stabilize, the grid maybe, because of not 5
enough voltage or whatever it is.
6 So I'm generally concerned about 7
projecting out what global warming could potentially 8
do and make sure that there's an adequate margin so 9
that you wouldn't have to cycle down the plant during 10 the summer times. That's it. I talked about cycling 11 down the plant. I meant reducing power. So that's 12 either shutting down the plant or reducing power to 50 13 percent or some sort of percent type of thing and 14 stuff.
15 (Off the record.)
16 MS. CROMPTON: Hi. I'm Nancy Crompton, a 17 resident of Brattleboro, Vermont. I live four miles 18 from Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. My concerns 19 about living so close to the power plant are concerns 20 that, in fact, would not be alleviated even if I were 21 living far away from the nuclear power plant which I 22 have over the past few months been contemplating. The 23 fact is that there are people, there are 103 nuclear 24 power plants in the United States, all of them 25
4 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 generating nuclear waste for which we have no long-1 term disposal solution.
2 I've been told that the Federal Government 3
is supposed to have a plan in place by 2025 and I wish 4
to state that that is utterly unacceptable. It is on 5
our watch right now. It is our generation that is 6
responsible for the creation of the nuclear waste and 7
we need a solution, not soon, not tomorrow, but 8
yesterday, decades ago.
9 We have no moral right to create a poison 10 that can affect the earth and all living creatures for 11 a half life of 25,000 years, if I remember that 12 correctly. We have no moral right to do this.
13 We also do not have to demand so much electricity. We 14 don't really require it. Our inflated desires for the 15 expansion of electrical power have been -- are a 20th 16 century notion of progress at any cost. The cost is 17 now coming due and we are going to have to begin 18 paying for the expansion and -- oh dear, I'm starting 19 to ramble. Can we turn it off?
20 (Off the record.)
21 And I very much want to hear the NRC, the 22 Regulatory Commission and other leaders in our country 23 talking about conservation. This is indeed a war.
24 It's as if we are at war against our unchecked desire 25
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 to progress at the expense of other nations and at the 1
expense of the environment. And we can indeed change 2
our ways and show a willingness to conserve.
3 I'm concerned about also climate change.
4 Although the nuclear power plant was probably built to 5
withstand a 500-year storm and its effects on the 6
Connecticut River, since we have been seeing 100-year 7
storms in this area and in Boston over the last six 8
months, perhaps the infrastructure is indeed not 9
adequate to be worse worst case scenario, the kinds of 10 storms that we perhaps should be anticipating will 11 happen in the future.
12 And therefore, I'm very concerned about 13 dry-cask storage, alongside the Connecticut River 14 which flows through Massachusetts and Connecticut to 15 the Long Island Sound and just the idea that nuclear 16 radioactivity could be carried by that water all the 17 way to Long Island Sound should give us great pause.
18 I believe we have to take responsibility right now for 19 the effect that we are having because we are already 20 seeing its effects upon our children and 21 grandchildren.
22 We know that mercury in the ponds in the 23 fish that we happily go out and catch on a Sunday 24 already in Vermont, we can't allow the children to eat 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 more than four ounces a month and we have seen the 1
effects of children who have more than that. The 2
illnesses and cancers and neurological damage already 3
caused by different kinds of pollutants in Vermont is 4
staggering. We certainly don't need any more.
5 (Off the record.)
6 MS. KAYE: I'm Ellen Kaye. I live in 7
Brattleboro, right on the edge of the evacuation zone, 8
the 10-mile radius of Vermont Yankee. My comments 9
about environmental issues regarding Vermont Yankee 10 that I think should be given serious consideration:
11 (a) maybe the only issue is the waste. We're having 12 an increase in production and a relicensing and a 13 lengthening of the time that Vermont Yankee can 14 operate.
15 What we're getting is more and more waste 16 which we have no way to deal with. That waste is 17 going to last for many, many, many generations. We 18 have no idea what the health effects are going to be.
19 We have no idea what the effects on humans, animals, 20 plant life, everything that makes this place this 21 place. And I am tired of hearing everybody associated 22 with the nuclear power industry and the NRC talk about 23 nuclear power generation without ever addressing 24 waste. So what we have is a hazardous waste dump, a 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 nuclear waste dump on the banks of the Connecticut 1
River.
2 I'm raising a child here. I hear that 3
cancer rates near the plant are higher than in other 4
places. There's some studies. I hear that Strontium-5 90 turns up in baby teeth. So this is an experimental 6
thing and we're being experimented on and I don't 7
think it should continue. It should be closed down.
8 We should be looking for safer forms of energy 9
production and we should be conserving.
10 But what I want the NRC to weigh heavily, 11 it's the waste issue, environmentally, and the cancer 12 issue. Are there cancer clusters around nuclear power 13 plants? Are there elevated rates of breast cancer 14 around nuclear power plants? I read reports that say 15 that there are and it is unfair to experiment with a 16 population when these are questions hanging in the 17 air. It's unconscionable.
18 I think that's all I need to say today.
19 (Whereupon, at 7:12 p.m., the public 20 meeting was concluded.)
21 22 23 24 25