ML070670094

Comment (8) of Jesse Anderson Re Vermont Yankee Environmental Survey

ML070670094
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	02/01/2007
From:	James Anderson Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB
References
71FR76706 00008
Download: ML070670094 (3)

Text

1VermontYankeeEIS - Vermont Yankee Environmental Survey I From: "Anderson, Jesse" <jander8@entergy.com>

To: <VermontYankeeEIS@nrc.gov> 4' Date: Thu, Feb 1, 2007 8:43 AM

Subject:

Vermont Yankee Environmental Survey -/,/,{ /3%'

Environmental Survey Team:

Please register these comments together with the other public comments you have received.

I will start with something that your might not have considered yet.

I am a member of the 'Dark Sky Society'. Our objective is to rid the sky of light pollution. Nuclear power plants are major sources of light pollution. I understand that a certain number of lumens per square foot -.-'

are necessary for security inside the fence. Unfortunately, the way .i this is achieved now is inefficient. It causes the site to be highly -1 M-visible from the air at night from a long distance off. This is bad aircraft security and bad for the environment. There is an alternative.

It would require more light fixtures, each having full cutoff light shields to block ambient light. Over a twenty year life the energy -; --

savings from such a system would pay for it. The site would still have C-the required number of lumens per square foot and the vast majority of 72 -*

the ambient light leaving the site would be stopped. cr The rest has probably been said before.

I am Jesse Anderson of 16 Howe Road Williamsville, Vermont 05362.

I attended your public meeting on the evening of 1/31/2007 at the Latchis Theater in Brattleboro.

I was very impressed with your presentation that clearly showed the thorough process you are going through.

I want to register my agreements with your major conclusions.

The environmental impacts from VY are small. The claims of ongoing health effects from our operation are completely unsubstantiated. These scare tactics, when published in the newspaper on the editorial pages, probably fit the legal definition of slander and conscientious editors wouldn't publish them.

The environmental impacts from the alternatives are at least moderate to large.

In reaching your conclusion that the environmental impacts from VY are small you obviously have assumed that the spent fuel will be sent off site before the dry cask's one hundred year life has elapsed. I certainly agree with this assumption given the legal arrangements with.

the DOE, the progress (halting as it has been) on Yucca Mountain and new initiatives for reprocessing. The technical solutions to spent fuel storage have been known to be viable for a long time. The obstacles are primarily political.

Regards the terrorist threat, I don't know which option is safer, the

VYermontYankeeElS - Vermont Yankee Environmental Survey Page_2jl spent fuel pool or dry casks. If the dry casks are deemed to be safer, and if we need to transfer our spent fuel to transport casks at some point in the future anyways, then I would support moving the fuel to the casks now. If this is considered a decommissioning cost then I would support allowing the utilities to use decommissioning funds to do this.

If there are mitigation strategies that are cost effective I would support those too. These would seem to me to be sensible anti-terrorist measures. Evaluating these small probability events with unknowable consequences is difficult. They must be balanced against the severe consequences that are certainties when considering fossil fueled alternatives. I would ask you to weigh the comparison as if your office was in the Netherlands (and to be fair, down wind from a dry cask storage facility).

You stated at the meeting that the major reasons that the alternative environmental impacts were considered moderate to large was construction of new facilities. I would hope that the ongoing activities of these postulated new facilities would be considered too. It seems to me that the greenhouse gas effects of a new natural gas plant would far out weigh the damage from construction activities. I would call these impacts severe. I also do not think that conservation and exotic alternative sources are a legitimate alternative to base load power given the costs and technical uncertainties involved. Cheap clean power is the holy grail of inventors and investors. If it exists there is a huge incentive to find-it. So far no one has.

Considered from the narrow perspective of the environment and leaving out for the moment safety and economics, licensing VY for another twenty years is really an easy call. The very, very remotely potential catastrophic negative affects are all to people and property. Since people can move it is really just property. The environment will be secure no matter what.

1'ý cAtemp\GW)00001.TMP Page lil cAte rnp\GW}OOOO1.TMP Page 1 Mail Envelope Properties (45C1EE5A.6F7 :11: 30455)

Subject:

Vermont Yankee Environmental Survey Creation Date Thu, Feb 1, 2007 8:42 AM From: "Anderson, Jesse" <jander8 @entergy.com>

Created By: jander8 @entergy.com Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO03.HQGWDO01 VermontYankeeEIS Post Office Route TWGWPO03.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4347 Thursday, February 1, 2007 8:42 AM TEXT.htm 13442 Mime.822 21702 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled